those from other Federal requirements as of 2002, the baseline date for
the 2008 SIP.\91\ The BART alternative limits in this proposed action
are enforceable by the State through certain provisions in Permit No.
0287-AOP-R22. These specific permit conditions have been submitted as
part of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal as source-
specific SIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The emission limits and estimated annual emission
reductions under the BART alternative are presented in Tables 1 and
6, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We, therefore, propose to approve the BART alternative
demonstration for Domtar as meeting the applicable requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). We also propose to approve the specific plantwide
permit provisions for the BART alternative as source-specific SIP
requirements. We propose to withdraw the SO2,
NOX, and PM10 BART emission limits in the FIP and
associated compliance requirements for Domtar Power Boiler Nos. 1 and
2; and replace them with the State's SO2, NOX,
and PM10 BART alternative emission limitations and
compliance requirements in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision. In addition, we propose to approve the State's replacement of
the current PM10 BART determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu that
was approved for Power Boiler No. 1 in our March 2012 final action on
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP with the PM10 BART
alternative limit.

G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide the designated
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation at least sixty days prior to
holding any public hearing on a SIP revision for regional haze for the
first implementation period. Arkansas sent emails to the FLMs on August
9, 2018, providing notification of the proposed SIP revision and
electronic access to the draft SIP revision and related documents. The
FLMs did not provide comments to Arkansas on the proposed SIP revision.
    The Regional Haze Rule at section 51.308(d)(3)(i) also provides
that if a state has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the state must consult with the other state(s) in order
to develop coordinated emission management strategies. Since Missouri
has two Class I areas impacted by Arkansas sources, Arkansas sent an
email to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on August
9, 2018, providing notification of the proposed SIP revision and
electronic access to the draft and related documents. Missouri did not
provide comments to Arkansas on the proposed SIP revision.
    We propose to find that Arkansas provided an opportunity for
consultation to the FLMs and to Missouri for the proposed SIP revision,
as required under section 51.308(i)(2) and 51.308(d)(3)(i).

III. Evaluation of Arkansas' Long-Term Strategy Provisions for Domtar
Ashdown Mill

    We approved the majority of Arkansas' long-term strategy
requirements in the 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP. Because we disapproved some of ADEQ's BART determinations and
disagreed with the calculated RPGs for Arkansas' two Class I areas in
that action, we disapproved the corresponding emission limits and
schedules of compliance section under 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) since that
section relies on the State having approved BART determinations and
established RPGs as part of its long-term strategy. The 2016 FIP later
established emission limits and included revised RPGs that became
components of the long-term strategy for Arkansas' Class I areas. The
EPA-approved Phase I and II SIP revisions (mentioned in section I.F of
this action) replaced all of the 2016 FIP BART determinations with
enforceable SIP measures except for the requirements pertaining to the
two Domtar power boilers. With our approval of the Phase II SIP
revision, all of the elements of the long-term strategy were approved
except for those pertaining to Domtar. ADEQ did not revise the long-
term strategy elements in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal except for inclusion of enforceable emission limitations and
compliance schedules for Domtar. ADEQ is addressing those remaining FIP
BART requirements for Domtar with the BART alternative provisions in
section II of this action. Based upon this, we propose to approve the
emission limits and schedules of compliance section under
51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) pertaining to Domtar in the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. Pending final approval of the BART alternative
requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill being addressed in this
action, ADEQ will have satisfied all long-term strategy requirements
under section 51.308(d)(3) for the first implementation period.

IV. Evaluation of Reasonable Progress Requirements for Domtar Ashdown
Mill

    On September 27, 2019, in our final action on the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, we determined that Arkansas
had fully addressed the reasonable progress requirements under section
51.308(d)(1) for the first implementation period and we agreed with the
State's revised RPGs for its Class I areas. In that action, we noted
that the 2016 FIP BART requirements for Domtar were still in place but
we agreed with the State that as long as those requirements continue to
be addressed by the measures in the FIP, nothing further is needed to
satisfy the reasonable progress requirements for the first
implementation period. We acknowledged in that action that we would
assess the August 13, 2019, Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal to address the regional haze requirements for Domtar and
evaluate any conclusions drawn by ADEQ regarding the need to conduct a
reasonable progress analysis for that facility. In addition, we stated
that we would also assess the August 13, 2019, submittal to see if
changes are needed with respect to the revised RPGs, based on any
differences between the SIP and FIP-based measures for Domtar.
    In the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal, which we are
proposing to approve in this action, the BART alternative analysis
performed for the Domtar power boilers is based, in part, on an
assessment of the same factors that must be addressed in a reasonable
progress analysis establishing the RPGs.\92\ The 2007 guidance for
reasonable progress explains that, ``it is reasonable to conclude that
any control requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy
the RPG-related requirements for source review in the first RPG
planning period. Hence, you may conclude that no additional emission
controls are necessary for these sources in the first planning
period.'' \93\ This rationale applies for Domtar since a previous BART
determination for Domtar was

developed in the 2016 FIP. That BART analysis was compared to the BART
alternative controls in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal. As detailed in Section II above, the BART alternative
measures for Domtar result in greater visibility improvement than the
BART requirements in the FIP and the previously approved BART
PM10 limit for Power Boiler No. 1. We propose to agree with
ADEQ's conclusion in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III submittal
that nothing further is needed to satisfy the reasonable progress
requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See 40 CFR 51.308(d). The State must evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of visibility
impairment.
    \93\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 4-3, and 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ also provided calculations in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase
III SIP submittal, estimating the effect of emission reductions from
the BART alternative on the 2018 revised RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo.\94\ ADEQ scaled CENRAP's CAMx \95\ 2018 modeled light
extinction components from Arkansas sources for
SO4\2\- and NO3-in
proportion to emission reductions anticipated for SO2 and
NOX from the SIP controls in the previously approved Phase I
and Phase II SIPs, as wells as the BART alternative controls for
Domtar. The estimation of the revised 2018 RPGs in the Phase II SIP
accounted for emission reductions anticipated under the FIP for Domtar,
and the emission reductions due to the controls in the Phase I and
Phase II SIP revisions.\96\ In our final action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, we agreed with the
State's revised RPGs for its Class I areas.\97\ We note that based on
IMPROVE monitoring data, both Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness
areas are achieving greater visibility improvement than the revised
2018 RPGs.\98\ ADEQ estimated that the emission reductions from the
BART alternative would negligibly impact the revised 2018 RPGs
established in the Phase II SIP revision for the twenty percent worst
days. As a result, ADEQ did not make revisions to the 2018 RPGs for its
Class I areas in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal.
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have been operating at emission levels below
the BART alternative emission limits since December 2016 (as discussed
in section II.C), so emission reductions from Domtar are reflected in
the current monitoring data which shows that current visibility
conditions are better than the revised 2018 RPGs. We propose to agree
with ADEQ that the BART alternative for Domtar would have only a minor
impact on the 2018 RPGs previously established in the Phase II SIP
revision and that there is no need to revise them in conjunction with
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Excel spreadsheet ``Phase III SIP Rev RPG.xlsx,'' which
is part of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and can
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    \95\ Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions, i.e. CAMx,
is a multi-scale, three-dimensional photochemical grid model.
    \96\ See appendix F6 of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision.
    \97\ The 2018 RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were
revised slightly downward from the 2008 SIP RPGs to 22.47 dv and
22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst days.
    \98\ See Figures 11 and 12 of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision (pages 50-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve the reasonable progress components under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1) relating to Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. With the
approved Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision
requirements and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III BART alternative
requirements being addressed in this proposed action (pending final
approval), Arkansas will have addressed all reasonable progress
requirements under section 51.308(d)(1) and will have a fully-approved
regional haze SIP for the first implementation period.

V. Evaluation of Arkansas Visibility Transport

    On October 4, 2019, the State submitted the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) regarding interstate transport
for the 2015 O3 NAAQS. In that proposed SIP submittal,
Arkansas addressed the prong 4 visibility transport obligations in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 O3 NAAQS; the 2010 SO2
NAAQS; and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We are proposing to approve
these elements in this action. All other applicable Infrastructure SIP
requirements for that SIP submission have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemakings. On August 10, 2018, the State also submitted a
discussion on visibility transport in its Phase II Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. In this action, we are also
proposing to approve that portion of the Phase II SIP submittal as
supplemented by the 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
revision.
    The EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on
September 13, 2013. The 2013 guidance lays out how a state's
infrastructure SIP submission may satisfy prong 4.\99\ The guidance
indicates that one way that a state can satisfy prong 4 requirements is
with a fully-approved regional haze SIP that meets the requirements
found in 40 CFR 51.308 or 309. Requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii) specifically require that a state participating in a
regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. A fully-approved regional haze plan will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures required to be included in other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility. The 2009 guidance,\100\ which
the 2013 guidance built upon, explained how the development of regional
haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among
the states. It was envisioned that through this process states would
coordinate emission controls to protect visibility and take action to
achieve the emission reductions relied upon by other states in their
reasonable progress demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)'' by Stephen D. Page (Sept. 13, 2013).
    \100\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
by William T. Harnett (September 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, the 2013 guidance explains that in the absence of a
fully-approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the prong 4
requirement through a demonstration showing that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with another air agencies' plans to
protect visibility. According to the guidance, such an infrastructure
SIP submission would need to include an analysis of measures that limit
visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform
with any mutually agreed upon regional haze RPGs for Class I areas in
other states.

A. Fully-Approved Regional Haze SIP to Meet Visibility Transport
Requirement

    The State indicated in the October 4, 2019, Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal that a fully-
approved regional haze SIP will meet the prong 4 visibility transport
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision (Phase I),\101\ the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (Phase II),\102\ and the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision, if finalized, together
will fully address the deficiencies in the

2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP as identified in our March 12, 2012
final action. If we take final action to approve the Phase III SIP
submittal, Arkansas will have a fully-approved regional haze SIP for
the first planning period. This will ensure that emissions from
Arkansas will not interfere with measures required to be included in
other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. We are, therefore,
proposing to approve the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility
transport elements included in the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, as supplemented in the Arkansas
2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision. These
revisions address prong 4 for the following NAAQS: The 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour
NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Finalization of the Arkansas prong 4 visibility transport elements in
these submittals on the basis of a fully-approved SIP is contingent
upon final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
    \102\ Final action approved on September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51033).
Proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternate Demonstration to Meet Visibility Transport Requirement

    As stated previously, the 2013 guidance provides that in the
absence of a fully-approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the
prong 4 requirement through a demonstration showing that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. ADEQ provided such a demonstration in the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal
that addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for
the six NAAQS previously mentioned. Arkansas documented its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations needed at affected
Class I areas in other states and provided a demonstration that the SIP
includes approved federally enforceable measures that contribute to
achieving the 2018 RPGs set for those areas.
    Through collaboration with the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP),\103\ ADEQ worked with other central states to
assess state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in
specific Class I areas affected by emissions from Arkansas. ADEQ used
CENRAP as the main vehicle for developing its 2008 regional haze SIP
for the first implementation period.\104\ CENRAP developed regional
photochemical modeling results, visibility projections for 2018, and
source apportionment modeling to assist in identifying contributions to
visibility impairment. Two Class I areas outside Arkansas' borders,
Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge in
Missouri, were identified as being impacted by emissions generated from
within Arkansas.\105\ Based on the emission assessments and modeled
visibility impacts, the EPA agreed with the 2018 RPGs developed by
Missouri that account for Arkansas' emission contributions to those two
Class I areas.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ The CENRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal
governments, state governments and various federal agencies
representing the central states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota; and tribal
governments included in these states) that provided technical and
policy tools for the central states and tribes to comply with the
EPA's Regional Haze regulations.
    \104\ 77 FR 14604 (March 12, 2012).
    \105\ See 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (page 45).
    \106\ 77 FR 38007 (June 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP,
ADEQ presented the CENRAP modeled 2018 projected contributions to
visibility impairment at Missouri's two Class I areas that included
particulate source apportionment (PSAT) results. CENRAP contracted with
ENVIRON International and the University of California at Riverside
(Collectively ``Environ/UCR'') to perform the emissions and air quality
modeling. The CENRAP modeling projected that Arkansas emissions
contribute 7.6 percent of the total light extinction at Hercules-Glades
and 4.4 percent of the total light extinction at Mingo.\107\ Based on
the projected CENRAP modeling results, ADEQ noted that both Hercules-
Glades and Mingo were expected to achieve visibility improvements
greater than or equal to what would be achieved under a uniform rate of
progress by 2018.\108\ The modeling included some emission reductions
anticipated from BART controls at EGUs in Arkansas and other states.
Missouri set its RPGs based on these 2018 visibility projections by
CENRAP and did not request Arkansas to include any specific measures
beyond the anticipated BART reductions included as inputs in the
projected modeling.\109\ ADEQ met its share of emission reduction
obligations that Missouri agreed to and relied on in establishing their
own RPGs by implementing BART emission limits for EGUs in the Phase I
and II SIP submittals that were approved by the EPA. ADEQ summarized
those measures in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP and then compared the SIP-controlled emissions to what
was originally projected. The State demonstrated that its emission
reduction obligations have been met because the EPA-approved Phase I
and II SIP revision controls achieve greater emission reductions than
Arkansas had committed to by reducing the emissions to less than the
projections used to develop Missouri's 2018 RPGs for Hercules-Glades
and Mingo for the first implementation period.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See Figures 69 to 72 from the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal (pages 98-102).
    \108\ Environ International Corporation and University of
California at Riverside (2007). ``Technical Support Document for
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans.''
    \109\ See Alpine Geophysics, LLC (2006) ``CENRAP Regional Haze
Control Strategy Analysis Plan.''
    \110\ See Tables 15 and 16 from the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal (page 103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Phase I SIP revision replaced source-specific NOx
emission limits for EGUs with reliance on CSAPR for O3
season NOX as an alternative to BART. The CSAPR update
revised the O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas
units from 15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048 tons
NOX (11,808 allocated to existing EGUs) in 2017. The budget
was further reduced to 9,210 tons NOX (9,025 allocated to
existing EGUs) in 2018 and beyond, which is 5,164 tons less than the
2014 to 2016 O3 season average. When comparing the 2018
O3 season emissions, Arkansas totaled 10,952 tons
NOX, which is 2,912 tons below the 13,865 tons projected for
EGUs. ADEQ noted that three of the Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs, White
Bluff units 1 and 2 and Flint Creek, have recently installed low
NOX burners with separated overfire air to reduce
NOX emissions. The Phase II SIP revision included measures
to address all remaining disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, with the exception of those portions specifically
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill, the only non-EGU subject-to-BART
facility in Arkansas. The Phase II SIP revision controls are estimated
to reduce the total annual SO2 emissions from Arkansas
subject-to-BART sources to 18,699 tons lower than what was assumed in
the 2018 projections (see Table 15). We are proposing to find that the
controlled emission rates from each of these SIP revisions show that
Arkansas has obtained its share of the emission reductions agreed upon
and necessary to achieve the 2018 RPGs set by

Missouri at Hercules-Glades and Mingo areas for the first planning
period.

            Table 15--2018 Projected SO2 Emissions Compared to Phase II Controlled EGU SO2 Emissions
                                                     [Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                  2018 projected      Annual         emission
                    Subject-to-BART facility                         emissions      controlled      reductions
                                                                       \111\         emissions      beyond the
                                                                                \112\        projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Arkansas White Bluff *..................................          45,970    29,175 \113\          16,795
Arkansas Electric Cooperatives John L. McClellan................              <1              75             -75
Southwestern Power Company Flint Creek..........................           2,896             907           1,989
Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Carl E. Baily Generating Station.               0              10             -10
Entergy Arkansas Lake Catherine.................................               0              <1               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          48,866          30,167          18,699
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There are no source-specific NOX measures for Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs, except for a limit for White
  Bluff Auxiliary boiler. The Phase I SIP revision replaced source-specific NOx emission limits for EGUs in the
  FIP with reliance on CSAPR for O3 season NOX as an alternative to BART.

    The 2018 emission projections did not assume any emission
reductions from Domtar. Therefore, Missouri did not rely on any
reductions from the Domtar Ashdown Mill when calculating 2018 RPGs for
Mingo and Hercules-Glades. Thus, Arkansas has demonstrated that it is
meeting its visibility transport obligations even without the BART
alternative emission limits for the Domtar Ashdown Mill in the Phase
III SIP revision. The EPA is adding Table 16 to show that additional
SO2 and NOX emission reductions of 333 tpy and
1,719 tpy, respectively, will occur from the Domtar BART alternative
controls evaluated in section II of this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ These values have been included in the spreadsheet that
Arkansas adapted from a Reasonable Progress Goal scaling spreadsheet
developed by EPA for use in determining the extent that changes in
control requirements are anticipated to result in changes in
visibility impairment on the twenty percent worst days for Arkansas
Class I areas. This spreadsheet was included in the submittal by the
State and is in the docket of this action. It can also be accessed
at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/regional-haze/f.6-sip-rev-rpg-data-sheet.xlsx.
    \112\ Except for White Bluff Controlled Emission Rates,
controlled emission rates can be found on the 2018 tab of the F.6
SIP Rev RPG Data Sheet. (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/regionalhaze/f.6-sip-rev-rpg-data-sheet.xlsx).
    \113\ Entergy (2017) ``Updated BART Five-Factor Analysis for
SO2 for Units 1 and 2'' for White Bluff Steam Electric
Station (Available at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/
pdfs/regional-haze/appendix-d-d.1_d.8.pdf).

                                    Table 16--Arkansas Phase III SIP Controlled Emissions for Domtar BART Alternative
                                                                         [Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2018 projected emissions        SIP-controlled emissions         SIP emission reduction
                Subject-to-BART facility                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SO2             NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2             NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Ashdown Mill.....................................           2,241           3,839           1,907           2,120             333           1,719
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The visibility improvement observed at the IMPROVE monitors by ADEQ
in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
indicates that Missouri is achieving greater visibility improvement for
Hercules-Glades and Mingo than Missouri's 2018 RPGs.\114\ The 2012 to
2016 five-year rolling average of observed visibility impairment for
the twenty percent haziest days at Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area is
20.72 dv (2.34 dv below Missouri's 2018 RPG). The 2012 to 2016 five
year-rolling average of observed visibility impairment for the twenty
percent haziest days at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge is 22.34 dv
(1.37 dv below Missouri's 2018 RPG goal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See Figures 73 and 74 of the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal (pages 109-110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Conclusion on Arkansas Visibility Transport

    We propose to approve the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility transport provisions included in the October 4, 2019,
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3
NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS on the basis that Arkansas will have a fully-
approved Regional Haze SIP once we finalize our proposed approval of
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal. We also propose to
approve the visibility transport portion of the August 8, 2018, Phase
II SIP revision as supplemented by the October 4, 2019, Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP submittal. The Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision, the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, and the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision (if approved) together fully address all
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were
identified in our March 12, 2012, partial approval/disapproval action.
A fully-approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from
Arkansas will not interfere with measures required to be included in
other air agencies' plans to protect visibility as required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition, we propose to find that
Arkansas has provided an adequate demonstration in the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision. The
demonstration adequately shows that emissions within Arkansas'
jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies'

plans to protect visibility because of EGU control measures in the EPA-
approved Phase I and Phase II SIP revisions.

VI. Evaluation of CAA Section 110(l)

    Under CAA Section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of this chapter.'' \115\ Sections II, III, and
IV of this action explain how the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision will comply with the requirements of the regional haze
program. i.e., the other applicable requirements. Based on those
conclusions, we propose to approve that the SIP revision will not
interfere with the regional haze requirements in the CAA, including
requirements pertaining to BART or reasonable progress under 40 CFR
51.308(d) or (e). 40 CFR 51.308 details the required process for
determining the appropriate emission limitations and compliance
schedules for the regional haze program. As discussed in section II of
this action, the State followed the prescribed process for determining
the level of control required for the BART alternative for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill and adequately supported its determination with analysis
that meets the requirements under section 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). In
section III of this notice, we explain how ADEQ submitted emission
limits and schedules of compliance pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown
Mill that will satisfy all long-term strategy requirements under
section 51.308(d)(3). In section IV of this notice, we discuss how ADEQ
fully addressed the reasonable progress requirements under section
51.308(d)(1) and we agree that no additional controls are necessary to
achieve reasonable progress for the first implementation period. Our
proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
is supported by our evaluation of the State's analytical conclusions
and our rationale that the State has met the BART alternative and
reasonable progress requirements for regional haze under the CAA as
discussed in sections II, III, and IV of this action. For these
reasons, we propose to find that our proposed approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and concurrent proposed withdrawal
of the corresponding parts of the FIP do not interfere with the CAA
requirements pertaining to BART or reasonable progress under 40 CFR
51.308(d) or (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under
section 109. This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in
section 301(a)) is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as
that term is used in the regional haze program. Instead, section
110(l) provides that the EPA cannot approve plan revisions that
interfere with regional haze requirements (including reasonable
progress requirements) as far as they are ``other applicable
requirements'' of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose to find that approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal of the corresponding
parts of the FIP pertaining to Domtar will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets CAA section
110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those
that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made
designations. The EPA has concluded that 110(l) can be satisfied by
demonstrating that substitute measures ensure that status quo air
quality is preserved. However, 110(l) can also be satisfied by an air
quality analysis demonstrating that any change in emissions will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
In general, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on the nature of the revision, its
potential impact on air quality and the air quality in the affected
area. As discussed in sections II.B.3 and II.B.4 of this action,\116\
the BART alternative limits do not reduce SO2 emissions as
much as the BART controls, however, all areas in Arkansas have been and
are currently attaining all of the NAAQS, even though the BART controls
for Domtar have not been implemented. Therefore, even though the BART
alternative will not achieve the same level of emission reductions for
SO2, this will not negatively impact current air quality,
which is already sufficient to attain the SO2 NAAQS in
Arkansas. Further, the State of Missouri did not rely on reductions
from Domtar for its Regional Haze plans and the EPA is not aware of any
other air quality analyses that rely on implementation of the BART
requirements for Domtar in the FIP. Thus, the proposed withdrawal of
the BART provisions in the FIP and replacement with the BART
alternative requirements in the SIP will not negatively impact current
air quality. While it is true that the FIP included more stringent
SO2 emission limits for Domtar than the BART alternative,
there is no evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 limits in
the FIP for Domtar and the approval of the SO2 emission
limits in the Phase III SIP revision will interfere with attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS. In addition, as noted in section II.C of this
action, Domtar provided documentation demonstrating that Power Boilers
No. 1 and 2 have actually been operating at emission levels below the
BART alternative emission limits since December 2016. At this time, and
notwithstanding the fact that the FIP provisions have not gone into
effect, the areas that would be potentially impacted by the increase in
SO2 emissions allowed under the SIP revision as compared to
the FIP are attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Based on an
assessment of current air quality in the areas most affected by this
SIP revision, we are concluding that the less stringent SO2
emission limits in the Phase III SIP will not interfere with attainment
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See Tables 5 and 6 of this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since SO42- is a precursor to PM, there is
also a need to address whether withdrawal of the FIP and approval of
the SIP revision will interfere with attainment of the PM NAAQS. There
is no evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 limits in the FIP
and the approval of the SO2 emission limits in the SIP
revision will interfere with attainment of the PM NAAQS. At this time,
and notwithstanding the fact that the FIP provisions have not gone into
effect, the areas that would be potentially impacted by the increase in
SO2 emissions are attaining the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For these reasons we propose to conclude that the proposed approval
of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and withdrawal of
the remaining FIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS in Arkansas.

VII. Proposed Action

A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal

    We propose to approve the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision (submitted August 13, 2019) as meeting the applicable regional
haze BART alternative provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for
the Domtar Ashdown Mill. We propose to approve the reasonable progress
components under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) relating to Domtar Power Boilers
No. 1 and 2. With the approved Phase I and II SIP revision requirements
and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III BART alternative requirements
being addressed in this proposed action (pending final approval),
Arkansas will have addressed all reasonable progress requirements

under section 51.308(d)(1) with a fully-approved regional haze SIP. We,
therefore, propose to approve the emission limits and schedules of
compliance section under 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3) pertaining to the Domtar
Ashdown Mill in the August 13, 2019, submittal. Pending final approval
of the BART alternative requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill being
addressed in this action, ADEQ will have satisfied all long-term
strategy requirements under section 51.308(d)(3). We agree with ADEQ's
determination that the revised 2018 RPGs in the Phase II action do not
need to be further revised. We propose to find that Arkansas has
fulfilled its consultation requirements to FLMs and to Missouri for the
proposed SIP submittal under sections 51.308(i)(2) and 51.308(d)(3)(i).
Lastly, we propose to approve regional haze program-specific plantwide
conditions 32 to 43 from section VI of permit revision #0287-AOP-R22
into the SIP (effective August 1, 2019) for implementing the Domtar
BART alternative. Specifically, these plantwide conditions of permit
#0287-AOP-R22 are to be included in the SIP and approved as source-
specific SIP requirements for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 are as follows:
\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ For compliance with the CAA Regional Haze Program's
requirements for the first planning period, Power Boilers No. 1 and
2 are subject-to-BART alternative measures consistent with 40 CFR
51.308. Upon final EPA approval of the permit into the SIP, the
permittee continues to be subject to the conditions as approved into
the SIP even if the conditions are revised as part of a permit
amendment by ADEQ until such time as EPA approves any revised
conditions into the SIP. The permittee shall remain subject to both
the initial SIP-approved conditions and the revised SIP conditions,
unless and until EPA approves the revised conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The SO2, NOX, and PM10
emission limits in pph for Power Boiler No. 1 (condition 32) and Power
Boiler No. 2 (condition 37) based on a thirty boiler operating day
rolling average.
     Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
Power Boiler No. 1 (conditions 33 to 36) and Power Boiler No. 2
(conditions 38 to 43).

B. FIP Withdrawal

    We propose to withdraw the remaining portions of the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.173 that impose SO2 and
NOX BART requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler
No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and PM10 BART
requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2. We propose to
replace these portions of the withdrawn FIP with our approval of the
State's SO2, NOX, and PM10 BART
alternative emission limitations in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase
III SIP submittal. In addition, we propose to approve the State's
withdrawal of the current PM10 BART determination of 0.07
lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP,
and propose to replace it with our approval of the PM10 BART
alternative limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal.

C. Arkansas Visibility Transport

    We propose to approve the portion of the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision (submitted
October 4, 2019) addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4
visibility transport provisions for Arkansas for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour
NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. We
also propose to approve the visibility transport portion of the 2018
Phase II SIP revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision. The State's
analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport
SIP supersedes the visibility transport portion of the 2017
infrastructure SIP. We propose to approve the prong 4 portions of these
SIP submittals on the basis that Arkansas will have a fully-approved
regional haze SIP if we finalize our proposed approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal. The Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision,\118\ the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision,\119\ and the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision (if finalized) together will fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were
identified in the March 12, 2012, partial approval/disapproval action.
A fully-approved regional haze plan ensures that emissions from
Arkansas sources do not interfere with measures required to be included
in another air agencies' plans to protect visibility. As an alternative
basis for approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for these
NAAQS, we propose to find that Arkansas has provided an adequate
demonstration in the October 4, 2019 submittal showing that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
    \119\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval
and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. CAA Section 110(l)

    We propose to find that approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal of the corresponding
parts of the FIP, as proposed, meet the provisions of CAA section
110(l).

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we propose to include in a final rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we propose to incorporate by reference
revisions to the Arkansas source specific requirements as described in
the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more
information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 6, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-05106 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DRAFT Placement of Coal Ash at Abandoned Mine Land Sites The purpose of the Abandoned Mine Land ( AML) program is to protect public health, safety, and property and to restore land and water resources and the environment previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices. Lands which are eligible for reclamation are those that were mined for coal or affected by mining and abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status prior to August 3, 1977.

According to the Office of Surface Mining's Final Environmental statement on the AML program, a total of 383,400 abandoned surface coal mined acres accumulated from 1931 to 1971. Furthermore, over 400,000 acres were threatened by the potential of subsidence, over 10,000 miles of stream had been affected by mining, and over 5,000 miles of stream had been impacted by acid mine drainage.

Coal combustion materials legitimately utilized in a beneficial manner have, and continue to be, a significant by product with properties conducive for use in AML activities. Many state programs have specific statutory or regulatory criteria which allows the beneficial use of these materials for specific purposes. For some states, the use for AML reclamation is stated specifically in law or regulation. Many state programs utilize these materials in reclamation activities each year. As many of these uses are specific to the site, intensive nationwide regulations or guidelines could serve as a disincentive for the use of an otherwise quality material.

The use of coal combustion materials is dependent on several factors. The factor with most significance is likely access to the material. Areas in need of reclamation activities that do not have a source of coal combustion materials in close proximity will be impacted by transportation costs such that either an alternative material will be required or the project simply does not take place.

The use of coal combustion materials for structural fills associated with AML reclamation activities is a common occurrence. This use is oftentimes for the purpose of stabilization of abandoned highwalls for the prevention of slides or elimination of a safety hazard. Another use for structural fills is the sealing and stabilization of abandoned underground mines. This beneficial use is for subsidence prevention and water discharge deterrent. Likewise, coal combustion materials are utilized in the AML program for providing a cap to coal refuse piles. This use decreases infiltration and recharge to water tables which may have formed in the refuse pile, thus helping to mitigate acid mine drainage which develops downslope of these areas. Normally, the generator of the material is required to provide chemical and structural analyses. Parameters include pH, metals, and acid base accounting. Proctor analysis for determining optimum lift and compaction are included. Surface water monitoring oftentimes occurs with groundwater monitoring dependent upon the beneficial use application and the condition of the groundwater present at the site.

The use of coal combustion materials as an alkaline recharge material is very significant, particularly in the eastern region. Oftentimes, highly alkaline coal combustion materials are utilized to increase neutralization potential which decreases acid mine drainage. The manner in which this use occurs varies dependent upon the specifics associated with the mine which is being reclaimed. In some instances, it may be for filling vertical shafts several hundred feet deep. This eliminates both a safety hazard and allows alkaline materials to mingle with groundwater and mitigate the affects of acid mine drainage prior to exiting the mine downslope. In these cases, the material is characterized for pH, metals, and acid base accounting. Only those materials which are conducive for providing alkaline recharge are utilized. Surface water monitoring at locations that water exits the mine takes place. In the event that water does not exit the mine and the quality of the water is at issue, groundwater monitoring is enacted.


[Federal Register: January 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 704-705]
[DOCID:fr07ja09-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-27-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Natural Gas 2008
Abandonment and Modification Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

December 31, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the potential environmental impacts of Southern Natural Gas
Company's (Southern) 2008 Abandonment and Replacement Project involving
the in-place abandonment of approximately 97 miles of pipeline in
Mississippi and Alabama. The pipeline, which is part of Southern's
North Main Loop Line, consists of 18-inch-diameter to 24-inch-diameter
pipe, would be abandoned in six segments. In addition, Southern
proposes to abandon three compressor units at the Onward Compressor
Station in Sharkey County, Mississippi. The EA will be used by the
Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on January 30, 2009. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the ``Public Participation'' section of this notice.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this proposed project and to encourage
them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The six pipeline segments Southern proposes to abandon are located
in Sharkey, Yazoo, Winston, Noxubee, and Lowndes Counties, Mississippi
and Pickens and Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama. These pipeline segments
were installed using a mechanical coupling technology in the late 1930s
and early 1940s. The pipeline, consisting of 18- to 24-inch-diameter
pipe, would be cut, cleaned, sealed, and abandoned in place. In
addition, three compressor units are proposed for abandonment at the
Onward Compressor Station in Sharkey County. The project also includes
the removal, installation, and modification of various ancillary
facilities associated with the pipeline segments to be abandoned. Along
the pipeline right-of-way, 46 work sites would be utilized for the
abandonment and additional modifications.
    All pipeline abandonment activities would be conducted within the
existing right-of-way and compressor station areas. No new access roads
would be required to facilitate the abandonment of the pipeline,
compressor units, or ancillary facilities.
    A map showing the general location of the proposed project is
included as appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions
on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the ``Additional Information''
section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps
of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Southern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    We \2\ are preparing this EA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take
into account the environmental impact that could result if it
authorizes Southern's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking
federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special
expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate
with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to
request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to
be addressed in the EA. All comments received will be considered during
the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies,
public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
local libraries and newspapers, and the Commission's official service
list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review
if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission.

    To ensure your comments are received and considered, please
carefully follow the instructions in the ``Public Participation''
section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about Southern's 2008 Abandonment and Replacement
Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental
effects of the proposal, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen the environmental impacts. The more specific your comments,
the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will
be received in Washington, DC on or before January 30, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number with your submission. The docket
number can be found on the front of this notice. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling
expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project.
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing.''
    (3) You may file your comments via mail by sending an original and
two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1,
PJ-11.1.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
    If you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to
intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors have the right to
seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    As described above, we may publish and distribute the EA for public
review and comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA, please
return the Environmental Mailing List Form (appendix 2). If you do not
return the Environmental Mailing List Form or comment on the project,
you will be taken off the mailing list. All individuals who provide
comments will remain on our environmental mailing list for this
project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Website (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''
link. Click on the eLibrary link, then on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP09-27) in
the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, any public meetings or site visits scheduled for this
project will be posted on the Commission's calendar at http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related
information. You can also request additional information by calling
Southern at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-50 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3499-3501]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042]

CSA Group Testing & Certification Inc.: Application for Expansion
of Recognition and Proposed Modification to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of CSA Group
Testing & Certification Inc. (CSA) for expansion of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before February 27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3508, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Note that security procedures may result in significant delays in
receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2006-0042). All comments, including any personal
information you provide, are placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before February 27, 2019 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor by phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor by phone
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that CSA is applying for expansion of
current recognition as a NRTL. CSA requests the addition of one test
standard to NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides final decision on the application. These notices
set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that
scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including CSA, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    CSA currently has six facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification. Canadian Standards Association is
located at, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 1R3, Canada.
A complete list of CSA's scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/csa.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    CSA submitted an application, dated May 23, 2017 (OSHA-2006-0042-
0012), to expand recognition to include seven additional test
standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform
any on-site reviews in relation to this application. OSHA published a
Federal Register notice (82 FR 60051) announcing this application, but
referenced one incorrect standard in the listing of appropriate test
standards (UL 498A). OSHA further published a Federal Register notice
(83 FR 22289) granting recognition for the six additional standards
requested in the application. This notice revises the previous Federal
Register notice for the one remaining standard (UL 498A). UL 498A is
already included in the list of appropriate test standards and in CSA's
scope of recognition.
    Table 1 lists the appropriate test standard found in CSA's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in
                     CSA's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 489A *.....................  Standard for Circuit Breakers for Use in
                                 Communications Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the standard that OSHA proposes to add to the NRTL
  Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

III. Proposal To Add New Test Standard to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards

    Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the
NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards following an evaluation of the
test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the
agency evaluates the document to (1) verify it represents a product
category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify
the document represents an end product and not a component, and (3)
verify the document defines safety test specifications (not
installation or operational performance specifications).
    In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the
NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2 lists the
test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily
determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and
proposes to include it in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test
Standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

  Table 2--Test Standard OSHA Is Proposing To Add to the NRTL Program's
                   List of Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 489A.......................  Standard for Circuit Breakers for Use in
                                 Communications Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    CSA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of scope of
recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent
documentation, indicate that CSA can meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding recognition to include the addition of
this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed above.
This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of CSA's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written

documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must
submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request.
Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due
date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the
requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or
review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as
comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, at the
above address. These materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant CSA's application for
expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will
make the final decision on granting the application. In making this
decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 6, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-02026 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10365-10367]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31182; Amdt. No. 3790]

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 amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures 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 for the 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 March 9, 2018. 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 March 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter 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 Navigation Products, 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, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online 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 Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125),
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and 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 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 and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    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 these
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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, 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:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-Mar-18............  AL             Evergreen...........  Middleton Field.....       7/0916      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1B.
29-Mar-18............  AL             Evergreen...........  Middleton Field.....       7/0917      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1B.
29-Mar-18............  AL             Evergreen...........  Middleton Field.....       7/0918      2/12/18  VOR/DME RWY 10, Amdt 3A.
29-Mar-18............  AL             Evergreen...........  Middleton Field.....       7/0925      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B.
29-Mar-18............  UT             Brigham City........  Brigham City........       7/0939      1/25/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2B.

29-Mar-18............  UT             Brigham City........  Brigham City........       7/0942      1/25/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A.
29-Mar-18............  CA             Grass Valley........  Nevada County Air          7/0951      2/13/18  VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 1A.
                                                             Park.
29-Mar-18............  CA             Grass Valley........  Nevada County Air          7/0956      2/13/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig.
                                                             Park.
29-Mar-18............  CA             Grass Valley........  Nevada County Air          7/0958      2/13/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
                                                             Park.
29-Mar-18............  SD             Wagner..............  Wagner Muni.........       7/4352      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A.
29-Mar-18............  SD             Wagner..............  Wagner Muni.........       7/4353      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A.
29-Mar-18............  TX             Brownsville.........  Brownsville/South          7/4362      2/13/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A.
                                                             Padre Island Intl.
29-Mar-18............  TX             Brownsville.........  Brownsville/South          7/4400      2/13/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Orig.
                                                             Padre Island Intl.
29-Mar-18............  PA             Pottsville..........  Schuylkill County/         7/5164      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2.
                                                             Joe Zerbey.
29-Mar-18............  PA             Pottsville..........  Schuylkill County/         7/5165      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 2.
                                                             Joe Zerbey.
29-Mar-18............  NE             Beatrice............  Beatrice Muni.......       7/6218    2/16/2018  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2A.
29-Mar-18............  NE             Beatrice............  Beatrice Muni.......       7/6219    2/16/2018  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1B.
29-Mar-18............  NE             Beatrice............  Beatrice Muni.......       7/6224    2/16/2018  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2A.
29-Mar-18............  CA             Oroville............  Oroville Muni.......       7/8296      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1.
29-Mar-18............  AK             Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       7/9842       1/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3.
29-Mar-18............  OK             Duncan..............  Halliburton Field...       8/2954      2/13/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2.
29-Mar-18............  IA             Sioux City..........  Sioux Gateway/Col          8/3737      2/13/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 25D.
                                                             Bud Day Field.
29-Mar-18............  CO             Fort Collins/         Fort Collins-              8/4541      2/12/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 6B.
                                       Loveland.             Loveland Muni.
29-Mar-18............  CO             Fort Collins/         Fort Collins-              8/4542      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig.
                                       Loveland.             Loveland Muni.
29-Mar-18............  CO             Fort Collins/         Fort Collins-              8/4543      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1A.
                                       Loveland.             Loveland Muni.
29-Mar-18............  CO             Fort Collins/         Fort Collins-              8/4545      2/12/18  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7.
                                       Loveland.             Loveland Muni.
29-Mar-18............  TX             Beaumont/Port Arthur  Jack Brooks Rgnl....       8/4872      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-A.
29-Mar-18............  IA             Des Moines..........  Des Moines Intl.....       8/5986      2/13/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2.
29-Mar-18............  NM             Roswell.............  Roswell Intl Air           8/6296      2/12/18  RADAR-1, Orig-A.
                                                             Center.
29-Mar-18............  MO             St Louis............  Spirit of St Louis..       8/7173      2/13/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 8R, Amdt 14A.
29-Mar-18............  MO             St Louis............  Spirit of St Louis..       8/7174      2/13/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, Orig-C.
29-Mar-18............  CT             Willimantic.........  Windham.............       8/7701      2/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A.
29-Mar-18............  FL             Miami...............  Miami-Opa Locka            8/7849      2/12/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9.
                                                             Executive.
29-Mar-18............  HI             Kailua/Kona.........  Ellison Onizuka Kona       8/9475      2/13/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5.
                                                             Intl At Keahole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-04584 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P