[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11455-11464]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05769]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0761; FRL-9991-30-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Arizona's Regional Haze Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report''), submitted by the State of Arizona on November 12, 2015, as
a revision to its state implementation plan (SIP). Arizona submitted
its Progress Report and a negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan is not
needed at this time. The Progress Report addresses the federal Regional
Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing implementation plan addressing regional haze.
Arizona's Progress Report notes that Arizona has implemented the
measures in the regional haze implementation plan due to be in place by
the date of the Progress Report and that visibility in Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arizona is improving. The EPA is proposing
approval of Arizona's determination that the State's regional haze
implementation plan is adequate to meet RPGs in Class I areas affected
by emissions from Arizona for the first implementation period, which
extended through 2018, and requires no substantive revision at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0761 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panah Stauffer, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3247<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Description of Regional Haze
    B. History of Regional Haze Rule
    C. Arizona's Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Arizona's Progress Report
    A. Framework for Measuring Progress
    B. Data Sources for Arizona's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Review of Arizona's Progress Report
    A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the
Regional Haze Implementation Plan
    B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
    C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
    D. Determination of Adequacy
    E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

    Fine particles impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light,
thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can
see. Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by emissions of
fine particles by numerous sources and activities located across a
broad geographic area. These fine particles can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contribute to environmental
impacts, such as acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.

B. History of Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks
and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Department of the Interior, the EPA
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important value.\1\ In this notice, we
refer to mandatory Class I federal areas on this list as ``Class I
areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
Areas designated as Class I areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) on July 1, 1999.\2\ In the RHR, the EPA revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst
days'') over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'')
over the same period.\3\ The first regional haze implementation plan
generally covers the period from 2000-2018 (also known as the first
planning period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was subsequently
revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39103), October 13, 2006 (71 FR
60611), and January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078).
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states were required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from
within the state.\4\ States were also required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the
state's existing regional haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Arizona's Regional Haze Plan

    Arizona submitted its initial regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308
to the EPA on February 28, 2011 (hereinafter ``2011 Submittal'').\6\
The EPA actions in Table 1 followed the 2011 Submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On December 23, 2003, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze plan under 40
CFR 51.309 (``309 Plan''). Letter dated December 23, 2003, from
Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA, Region IX. On December 30, 2004, ADEQ submitted
a revision to its 309 Plan, consisting of rules on emissions trading
and smoke management, and a correction to the State's regional haze
statutes. Letter dated December 30, 2004, from Stephen A. Owens,
Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA. On
December 24, 2008, ADEQ sent a letter resubmitting the 309 Plan
revisions to the EPA. Letter dated December 24, 2008, from Stephen
A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
EPA. On May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28270) and May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25973),
the EPA approved the smoke management rules that were part of these
submittals. On August 8, 2013 (78 FR 48326), the EPA disapproved the
remainder of the State's submittals under 40 CFR 309. Therefore,
these prior submittals are not relevant for purposes of the Progress
Report, unless otherwise noted.

Table 1--Arizona Regional Haze--Summary of EPA Actions Under CAA Section
                                   308
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Date                              EPA action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 5, 2012.....................  ``Phase 1'' partial approval and
                                        partial disapproval of certain
                                        provisions of the 2011 Submittal
                                        and promulgation of partial
                                        federal implementation plan
                                        (FIP).\a\
July 30, 2013........................  ``Phase 2'' partial approval and
                                        partial disapproval of remaining
                                        portions of Arizona Regional
                                        Haze 2011 Submittal.\b\
September 3, 2014....................  ``Phase 3'' promulgation of FIP
                                        for remaining portions of
                                        Arizona Regional Haze
                                        program.\c\
April 10, 2015.......................  Approval of SIP revision for the
                                        Arizona Electric Power
                                        Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache
                                        Generating Station.\d\
April 17, 2015.......................  FIP revision replacing the
                                        control technology demonstration
                                        requirements for nitrogen oxides
                                        (NOX) at Lhoist North America of
                                        Arizona, Inc. Nelson Lime Plant
                                        with revised recordkeeping and
                                        reporting requirements.\e\
April 13, 2016.......................  FIP revision revising NOX
                                        requirements for the Salt River
                                        Project Agricultural Improvement
                                        and Power District (SRP)
                                        Coronado Generating Station.\f\
November 21, 2016....................  FIP revision replacing the
                                        control technology demonstration
                                        requirements for NOX at
                                        CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito
                                        Plant Kiln 4 and Phoenix Cement
                                        Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant
                                        Kiln 4 with revised
                                        recordkeeping and reporting
                                        requirements.\g\
March 27, 2017.......................  Approval of SIP revision to
                                        replace FIP for Arizona Public
                                        Service (APS) Cholla Generating
                                        Station.\h\
October 10, 2017.....................  Approval of SIP revision to
                                        replace FIP for the SRP Coronado
                                        Generating Station.\i\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 77 FR 72511 (December 5, 2012).
\b\ 78 FR 461421 (July 30, 2013).
\c\ 79 FR 52419 (September 3, 2014).
\d\ 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
\e\ 80 FR 21176 (April 17, 2015).
\f\ 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
\g\ 81 FR 83144 (November 21, 2016).
\h\ 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
\i\ 82 FR 46903 (October 10, 2017).

    On November 12, 2015, the State of Arizona submitted its Progress
Report to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).\7\ In
accordance with these requirements, the Progress Report describes the
status of implementation of measures included in the regional haze
implementation plan, emissions reductions from these measures, and
improvements in visibility conditions at the State's Class I areas. The
Progress Report also includes a negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter dated November 12, 2015, from Eric C. Massey,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Context for Understanding Arizona's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Arizona's Progress Report
as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background
on the regional haze program in Arizona.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. A deciview
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions (i.e., pristine (low
deciview) to extremely hazy (high deciview)). Deciviews are determined
by using air quality data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors to estimate
light extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction
using a logarithmic function. Arizona has 12 Class I areas within its
borders: The Chiricahua National Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness Area,
Galiuro Wilderness Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Mazatzal
Wilderness Area, Mount Baldy Wilderness Area, Petrified Forest National
Park, Pine Mountain Wilderness, Saguaro National Park, Sierra Ancha
Wilderness Area, Superstition Wilderness Area, and Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness Area. For this Progress Report, monitoring data representing
visibility conditions in Arizona's 12 Class I areas were based on the
ten IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 2.

 Table 2--Arizona IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site code                          Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1.............................  Mount Baldy Wilderness.
CHIR1.............................  Chiricahua National Monument,
                                     Chiricahua Wilderness & Galiuro
                                     Wilderness.
GRCA2.............................  Grand Canyon National Park.
IKBA1.............................  Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine Mountain
                                     Wilderness.
PEFO1.............................  Petrified Forest National Park.
SAGU1.............................  Saguaro National Monument--East
                                     Unit.
SAWE1.............................  Saguaro National Monument--West
                                     Unit.
SIAN1.............................  Sierra Ancha Wilderness.
SYCA2.............................  Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.
TONT1.............................  Superstition Wilderness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 17, 25.

    Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze plan must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that uniform rate. The EPA's 2014 FIP set the RPGs for
Arizona's 12 Class I areas based on modeling performed by the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), scaled according to projected emission
reductions from the FIP's controls for best available retrofit
technology (BART) and reasonable progress. Arizona used these RPGs in
its Progress Report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The RPGs are shown in Table 10 of today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Progress Report addresses Arizona's potential
contribution to visibility impairment at twelve Class 1 areas located
in three other states: Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.

B. Data Sources for Arizona's Progress Report

    To demonstrate visibility progress, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) used recent visibility information
available from the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS). It also used
the technical data and analyses in the ``Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report''
(``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013.\9\ The WRAP Report was prepared
for WRAP ``on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP
region, to provide the technical basis for the first of RHR individual
progress reports.'' \10\ ADEQ's Progress Report presented data for each
of its Class I areas comparing visibility conditions for the 20 percent
most impaired and 20 percent least impaired days during the baseline
period (2000-2004), the current period for the Progress Report (2009-
2013), and years between those periods. ADEQ also relied on WRAP TSS
data for its emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, 2.
    \10\ The WRAP Report is available at http://www.wrapair2.org/documents/Full%20Report/WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_Appendices.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions data for BART sources and non-BART electrical
generating units (EGUs) came from information the facilities report to
the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database. Emissions data
for non-electric generating unit (non-EGU) sources came from the 2008
and 2011 National Emissions Inventory as well as ADEQ's internal point
source emission database. ADEQ also calculated emissions averted from
prescribed burning of nonagricultural fuels using WRAP-recommended
emission reduction techniques.

III. The EPA's Review of Arizona's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Arizona's Progress Report,
the EPA's review of the report, the determination of adequacy required
by 40 CFR 51.308(h), and the requirement for state and federal land
manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze Implementation Plan

    In its Progress Report, Arizona provided descriptions and
compliance dates for emissions limits on the seven BART sources
established through the Arizona Regional Haze SIP \11\ and the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP.\12\ The Progress Report also described controls and
compliance dates for two reasonable progress sources that the EPA
established in the Arizona Regional

Haze FIP.\13\ The Progress Report addressed the status of these sources
at the time of the Report's submittal in 2015. However, most of the
compliance dates for these sources had not yet passed at the time of
the Report's submittal, so information regarding compliance was not
available. Following submittal of the Progress Report, the EPA has
taken several actions to approve revisions to the Arizona Regional Haze
SIP and to revise the Arizona Regional Haze FIP, as shown in Table 1
above. These revisions superseded some of the SIP requirements
discussed in the Progress Report. The RHR requires a progress report to
address the ``implementation plan,'' defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as any
SIP, FIP, or tribal implementation plan.\14\ Accordingly, in the
following sections, we summarize the currently applicable requirements
of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP, as
described in the Progress Report and revised by subsequent SIP and FIP
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We refer to the approved provisions of the Arizona Regional
Haze Plan (including approved revisions) collectively as the
``Arizona Regional Haze SIP.''
    \12\ We refer to the various FIP requirements promulgated by the
EPA collectively as the ``Arizona Regional Haze FIP.''
    \13\ These sources were not subject to BART, but the EPA
determined that they were required to implement controls under the
reasonable progress requirements of the RHR.
    \14\ No tribe in Arizona has a tribal implementation plan for
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described further below, beyond stationary source controls
required in the SIP and FIP, ADEQ also included visibility progress
made from the closure of certain stationary sources, existing federal
and state regulations, and the State's Enhanced Smoke Management
Program.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, 13-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Subject-to-BART Sources
    Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations
for BART-eligible \16\ sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area (known as
``subject-to-BART'' sources).\17\ States also have the flexibility to
adopt alternatives that provide greater reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions than BART for one or more subject-to-BART
sources (commonly known as ``better-than-BART'' alternatives).\18\ The
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP identified
seven subject-to-BART facilities (i.e., facilities that include one or
more BART-eligible units and were determined to be subject to BART):
AEPCO Apache Generating Station; APS Cholla Generating Station; SRP
Coronado Generating Station; Freeport-McMoRan Miami, Inc. Miami
Smelter; ASARCO, Inc., (``Asarco'') Hayden Smelter; Tucson Electric
Power (TEP) Sundt Generating Station; and the Nelson Lime Plant. The
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP establish BART
or better-than-BART alternative controls for NOX,
particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for each
of these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A BART-eligible source is an existing stationary source in
any of 26 listed categories built between 1962 and 1977 with
potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year. 40 CFR 51.301 and
40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section II.
    \17\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
    \18\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Apache Generating Station
    The Apache Generating Station (``Apache'') has three BART-eligible
units: ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wall-fired boiler with a net
unit output of 85 megawatts (MW) that burns pipeline-quality natural
gas as its primary fuel and can operate alone or in combined-cycle mode
with an adjacent Gas Turbine (GT1). Units ST2 and ST3 are both dry-
bottom, Riley Stoker turbo-fired boilers, operating on sub-bituminous
coal, each with a gross unit output of 204 MW.
    On December 5, 2012, the EPA approved the State's SO2
and PM BART limits for Apache and established FIP NOX
emission limits for units ST2 and ST3 based on installation and
operation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR). On April 10, 2015,
the EPA approved a SIP revision for Apache (``Apache SIP Revision'')
that included a better-than-BART alternative for Apache units ST2 and
ST3 (``Apache BART Alternative'') and a revised NOX emission
limit for ST1 that applies when it operates in combined-cycle mode with
the adjacent GT1.\19\ Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 was
converted from a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts
pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 remains as a coal-fired unit
and has been retrofitted with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).
The emission limits associated with the Apache BART Alternative are
summarized in Table 3. The compliance date for all limits was December
5, 2017, except that a more stringent limit for PM10 of
0.008 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) at ST2 that
became effective on December 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).

                              Table 3--Emission Limits for Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Emission Limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler operating days)
                    Unit                    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NOX                       PM10                       SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2........................................           0.085  0.01, then 0.008 (effective                 0.00064
                                                              December 5, 2018).
ST3........................................            0.23  0.03...............................            0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Apache SIP Revision also included a revised NOX
emission limit for the combined-cycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from
0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10 lb/MMBtu and set a 1,205 lb/day NOX
limit, based on a 30-calendar-day average, for ST1 operating in stand-
alone mode or in combined-cycle mode with GT1. Finally, the Apache SIP
Revision incorporated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for the existing ST1 BART SIP limits of 0.00064 lb
SO2/MMBtu and 0.0075 lb PM10/MMBtu into the SIP.
Upon approval of the Apache SIP Revision, the EPA withdrew all Regional
Haze FIP requirements that addressed BART for Apache.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Cholla Generating Station
    Cholla Generating Station (``Cholla'') consists of four coal-fired
electric generating units with a total plant-wide generating capacity
of 1150 MW. Unit 1 is a 126 MW boiler that is not BART-eligible. Unit 2
(272 MW), Unit 3 (272 MW), and Unit 4 (410 MW) are tangentially-fired
dry bottom boilers that are BART-eligible. On December 5, 2012, the EPA
approved the State's SO2 and PM BART limits for Cholla and
established FIP NOX emission limits for all three units
based on installation and operation of SCR.
    On March 27, 2017, the EPA approved a SIP revision for Cholla
(``Cholla SIP

Revision'') that included a revised BART analysis and determination for
NOX and a revision to Cholla's operating permit to implement
both the revised BART determination for NOX and ADEQ's prior
BART determinations for SO2 and PM10 at
Cholla.\21\ Under the revised NOX BART determination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Unit 2 was permanently shut down by April 1, 2016.
     Unit 3 and Unit 4 continue to operate with currently
installed low-NOX burners and separated over fire air. By
April 30, 2025, the owners will permanently cease burning coal at both
units with the option to convert to pipeline-quality natural gas by
July 31, 2025, with an annual average capacity factor of 20 percent or
less.
    Upon approval of the Cholla SIP Revision, the EPA withdrew all
Regional Haze FIP requirements applicable to Cholla.\22\ The current
SIP-approved BART limits for Cholla are shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.

                                      Table 4--Cholla BART Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30
                                                                              boiler operating days)
             Unit                             Dates              -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        NOX            PM10             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2........................  Unit shut down on April 1, 2016.
Unit 3........................  until April 30, 2025............            0.22           0.015            0.15
                                after April 30, 2025............            0.08            0.01          0.0006
Unit 4........................  until April 30, 2025............            0.22           0.015            0.15
                                after April 30, 2025............            0.08            0.01          0.0006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Coronado Generating Station
    Coronado Generating Station (``Coronado'') consists of two BART-
eligible 456 MW coal-fired steam boilers, known as Units 1 and 2. On
December 5, 2012, the EPA approved the State's SO2 and PM
BART limits for Coronado and established FIP NOX emission
limits for both units based on installation and operation of SCR.
    On October 10, 2017, the EPA approved a SIP revision that included
a better-than-BART alternative for Coronado (``Coronado SIP
Revision''), consisting of an interim operating strategy (``Interim
Strategy''), which is in effect from December 5, 2017, to December 31,
2025, and a final operating strategy (``Final Strategy''), which will
take effect on January 1, 2026.\23\ The requirements associated with
the Interim and Final Strategies are shown in Table 5 and summarized
briefly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 82 FR 46903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options
(designated IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which requires a period of
seasonal curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year,
SRP must select and implement one of the three options, based on the
NOX emissions performance of Unit 1 and the SO2
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In particular, by
October 21 of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and the EPA of its chosen
option for that calendar year (and for January of the following year)
and demonstrate that its NOX and SO2 emissions
for that year (up to the date of the notification) have not already
exceeded the limits associated with that option. SRP then must comply
with those limits for the remainder of the year (and for January of the
following year) and curtail operation of Unit 1 for the time period
required under that option. In addition, under each option, the
facility must comply with an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions
cap of 1,970 tons per year (tpy) effective in each year, beginning in
2018.
    The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision requires
installation of SCR on Unit 1 or the permanent cessation of operation
of Unit 1 no later than December 31, 2025. SRP is required to notify
ADEQ and the EPA of its selection by December 31, 2022. The Final
Strategy includes two additional features: An SO2 emission
limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-boiler operating day (BOD)
rolling average and applicable to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it
continues operating), and an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions
cap of either 1,970 tpy if both units continue operating or 1,080 tpy
if Unit 1 shuts down.

                                                      Table 5--Summary of Coronado BART Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu with 30-BOD    Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu with 30-BOD
                                                       average)                        average)              Annual plant-
             Control strategy              ----------------------------------------------------------------  wide SO2 cap     Unit 1 curtailment period
                                                  NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2            (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Strategy:
    IS2...................................           0.320           0.060           0.080           0.060           1,970  October 21-January 31
    IS3...................................           0.320           0.050           0.080           0.050           1,970  November 21-January 20
    IS4...................................           0.310           0.060           0.080           0.060           1,970  November 21-January 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interim Strategy Timeline.............                                   Notification date: October 21 of each year.
                                                                           Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Strategy:
    SCR Installation......................           0.065           0.060           0.080           0.060           1,970  N/A.
    Shutdown..............................             N/A             N/A           0.080           0.060           1,080  N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Strategy Timeline...................                                      Notification date: December 31, 2022.
                                                                        Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coronado SIP revision also included PM10 limits of
0.030 lb/MMBtu for each unit, as well as compliance deadlines and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
NOX, PM and SO2. Upon approval of the Coronado
SIP revision, the EPA withdrew all Regional Haze FIP requirements
applicable to Coronado.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Miami Smelter
    The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for Converters 2 through 5 and the electric furnace
at the Miami Smelter. For SO2 from the converters, the BART
emission limit is a control efficiency of 99.7 percent on a 365-day
rolling average. For SO2 from the electric furnace, the BART
emission limit is a work practice standard prohibiting active aeration.
For NOX, a 40 tpy limit applies to the converters and
electric furnace. For PM10, the FIP incorporates by
reference provisions of the national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for primary copper smelters. Compliance with the
SO2 emission limit for the converters was required by
January 1, 2018, and compliance with all other provisions was required
by September 2, 2016.
e. Hayden Smelter
    The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for converters 1, 3, 4, and 5, and anode furnaces 1
and 2 at the Hayden Smelter. Pursuant to a consent decree with the
United States, Asarco was required to cease operations at the existing
converters by May 1, 2018.\25\ Accordingly, the anode furnaces are the
only subject-to-BART units still in operation at the Hayden copper
smelter. As of September 4, 2017, these units were required to meet an
annual NOX emission limit of 40 tpy and only be charged with
blister copper or higher purity copper in order to limit SO2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Consent Decree No. CV-15-02206-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz) (entered
December 30, 2015), paragraph 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Sundt Unit 4
    The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes BART emissions limits and
the option of a better-than-BART alternative based on a switch from
coal to natural gas for TEP Sundt Unit 4. On March 14, 2016, TEP
notified the EPA that it had selected the alternative option and would
comply with the associated emission limits by the compliance date of
December 31, 2017.\26\ These limits are 0.25 lb/MMBtu for
NOX, 0.054 lb/MMBtu for SO2, and 0.010 lb/MMBtu
(or an alternative limit determined by testing) for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Letter dated March 14, 2016, from Erik Bakken, TEP, to
Kathleen Johnson, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Nelson Lime Plant
    The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes BART emissions limits for
Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant. The limits for NOX
are 3.80 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 1 and 2.61 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 2
on a 12-month rolling average with a compliance date of September 4,
2017. The limits for SO2 are 9.32 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 1
and 9.73 lb/ton of lime for Nelson Kiln 2 on a 12-month rolling
average, and 10.1 tons/day for both kilns combined with a compliance
date of March 3, 2016.
2. Reasonable Progress Sources
    The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes NOX emission
limits and related requirements for CPC Rillito Kiln 4 and PCC
Clarkdale Kiln 4 under the reasonable progress requirements of the RHR.
Both kilns are subject to 30-day rolling average NOX limits
achievable with installation and operation of SNCR, with a compliance
date of December 31, 2018. The limit for Rillito Kiln 4 is 3.46 lb
NOX/ton of clinker, and the limit for Clarkdale Kiln 4 is
2.12 lb NOX/ton of clinker.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The FIP provided an alternative limit of 810 tons
NOX/year for Clarkdale Kiln 4, but PCC elected to comply
with the lb/ton limit. Letter dated May 25, 2018 from Brett Lindsay,
Environmental and Energy Manager, PCC, to EPA Region IX Enforcement
Division and Air Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Closure of Existing Facilities
    In its Progress Report, ADEQ explained that Catalyst Paper, which
was a subject-to-BART source, closed permanently in 2012. The total
emissions from its boiler unit were more than 250 tons per year of
NOX and SO2. ADEQ noted in the Arizona Regional
Haze State Plan that this boiler had a visibility impact of 0.739
deciviews on the Sierra Ancha Wilderness area and 0.523 deciviews on
the Superstition Wilderness area. The closure of this facility
eliminated its emissions and corresponding visibility impacts.
4. Existing Federal and State Regulations
    ADEQ's Progress Report identified several federal and State
programs that contributed to emissions reductions in visibility-
impairing pollutants.
    The federal programs included in the Progress Report were: The
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, which reduced pollution from heavy-duty
engines and diesel fuel; the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Vehicle and Gasoline
Sulfur Program, which reduced emissions from passenger and light-duty
vehicles and gasoline; the Non-Road Engine Program, which reduced
emissions from non-road engines; the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, which
reduced pollution from power plants; and requirements to implement the
national ambient air quality standards.
    The state regulations described in the Progress Report were: The
Arizona State Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, which reduces
emissions from cars; and Arizona's New Source Review Program, which
addresses emissions from stationary sources.
5. Smoke Management
    In the Progress Report, ADEQ noted that it implements a certified
Enhanced Smoke Management Program that works toward a reduction in
smoke impacts due to prescribed/controlled burning of nonagricultural
fuels with particular regard to heavy forest fuels. All State lands,
parks, and forests, as well as any federally-managed lands in Arizona,
are under the jurisdiction of ADEQ in matters relating to air pollution
from prescribed burning. The EPA has approved the state and local rules
that comprise the Enhanced Smoke

Management Program into the Arizona SIP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 71 FR 28270 (May 16, 2006) and 72 FR 25973 (May 8, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Arizona Progress Report also includes a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. ADEQ examined the emissions of SO2,
NOX, primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC),
fine soil, fine particulate matter, coarse particulate matter (PMC),
ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
determined its emissions reductions are adequate to achieve Arizona's
RPGs. For the statewide emissions inventory, ADEQ used WRAP TSS data
and other information from WRAP to analyze emissions for 2002 (the
baseline year), 2008, and 2011 (the most current year for which data
were available). ADEQ stated in its Progress Report that these years
were selected because they provided the most comprehensive data. For
BART sources, EGUs, and other facilities that were subject to
reasonable progress controls, ADEQ provided annual emissions data from
2002-2013. The sources of that information were the EPA's CAMD,\29\ the
2008 and 2011 National Emissions Inventories, and ADEQ's point source
emissions database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ CAMD provides emissions and other data for certain large
stationary sources through the Air Markets Program Data tool
available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ provided statewide emissions trends for SO2,
NOX, POA, EC, Fine Soil, PMC, NH3, and VOCs. The
emissions trends are summarized in Table 6.

                                   Table 6--Statewide Emissions Trends of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants (Tons/Year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      SO2          NOX          POA           EC       Fine soil       PMC          NH3          VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................      111,709      368,498       57,754       14,745       25,294      158,099       42,203    1,889,682
2008............................................       86,314      293,114       23,972       10,789       48,288      240,570       42,457      894,010
2011............................................       77,657      264,708       50,057       18,054       50,352      381,306       49,131    1,272,342
Percent (%) Change 2002 to 2011.................         -30%         -28%         -13%          22%          99%         141%          16%         -33%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 19, page 48.

    VOC emissions decreased by approximately 33 percent from 2002 to
2011. However, changes to WRAP modeling techniques over time improved
the accuracy of biogenic emissions, which makes this direct comparison
of VOC emissions across years uncertain. These changes included
different meteorological models, variability of land cover, and
improved emissions factors based on better sources of data.\30\ Table 7
summarizes VOC emissions by source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document. Table 3.2-1. http://www.wrapair2.org/documents/SECTIONS%201.0%20-%203.0/WRAP_RHRPR_Sec_1-3_Background_Info.pdf.

                                  Table 7--VOC Emissions by Source (Tons/Year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2008            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................           5,464           3,490           3,414
Anthropogenic Fire..............................................             855           5,781          10,053
Natural Fire....................................................          36,377           1,330         222,314
Biogenic........................................................       1,576,698         686,255         880,219
Area............................................................         102,918         100,256          67,622
WRAP Area O&G...................................................              46              12              65
On-Road Mobile..................................................         110,424          54,589          49,387
Off-Road Mobile.................................................          56,901          42,297          39,268
Fugitive/Road Dust..............................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
WB Dust.........................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,889,682         894,010       1,272,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, page 50.

    As shown in Table 6, total emissions of SO2 and
NOX decreased consistently from 2002 to 2011. The
approximately 30 percent reduction in SO2 from 2002 to 2011
was mainly attributed to controls on point source facilities. The
approximately 29 percent reduction in NOX was mainly
attributed to point sources and on-road mobile sources.
    Reported total PM emissions (categorized as PMC, fine soil, EC, and
POA) increased consistently from 2002 to 2011. The total increase from
2002 to 2011 was approximately 92 percent. The largest contributor to
this increase was PMC, which was primarily made up of windblown dust
and fugitive/road dust. Not only did the amount of reported PMC
increase at each inventory year, but the percentage of PMC within the
total particulate matter emissions also increased over time. Some of
this change may be due to improvements in WRAP methodologies for
estimating PMC emissions. As we noted in our supplemental Phase 2
proposal on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, emissions inventories for
particulate matter may be uncertain, largely because emissions of
fugitive/road dust and windblown dust are difficult to calculate
accurately.\31\ Therefore, for purposes of Regional Haze, we generally
consider IMPROVE monitoring data for these pollutants to be more
informative than emissions inventories. As described below, the overall
monitoring data for all Class I areas in Arizona have shown
improvements in visibility for the 20 percent most and least impaired
days between the baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-2013)
visibility periods. However, as shown in Table 8, species-specific
monitoring data show that visibility impairment from coarse mass and
fine soil increased in some Class I areas and decreased in other areas
between the baseline and progress

periods. Therefore, while the monitoring data generally show progress,
as we noted in the supplemental Phase 2 proposal on the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP, it will be necessary to more closely examine the
potential visibility impacts of fugitive and road dust on Arizona's
Class I areas in the second and future planning periods.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 78 FR 29292, 29297 (May 20, 2013).
    \32\ Id. at 29298.

              Table 8--Visibility Impairment From Fine Soil and PMC on 20 Percent Worst Days (Mm-1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fine soil                                 PMC
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 IMPROVE monitor    Class I area      Baseline     Current     Difference    Baseline     Current
                                     2000-2004    2009-2013        a        2000-2004    2009-2013    Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1...........  Mount Baldy               1.1          1.3          0.2          2.8          3.5          0.7
                   Wilderness.
CHIR1...........  Chiricahua                2.7          1.9         -0.8          8.6          7.4         -1.2
                   National
                   Monument,
                   Chiricahua
                   Wilderness &
                   Galiuro
                   Wilderness.
GRCA2...........  Grand Canyon              1.3          1.2         -0.1          3.5          3.2         -0.3
                   National Park.
IKBA1...........  Mazatzal                  2.6          2.3         -0.3          6.2          6.2          0.0
                   Wilderness &
                   Pine Mountain
                   Wilderness.
PEFO1...........  Petrified Forest          2.0          2.1          0.1          7.3          6.4         -0.9
                   National Park.
SAGU1...........  Saguaro National          3.4          2.5         -0.9          7.1          8.0          0.9
                   Monument--East
                   Unit.
SAWE1...........  Saguaro National          5.8          3.6         -2.2         12.8         11.2         -1.6
                   Monument--West
                   Unit.
SIAN1...........  Sierra Ancha              2.2          1.8         -0.4          5.9          4.4         -1.5
                   Wilderness.
SYCA2...........  Sycamore Canyon           6.8          5.6         -1.2          9.4          9.8          0.4
                   Wilderness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Calculated as the difference between the baseline period (2000-04) and current conditions (2009-13). A
  negative difference indicates a reduction in haze, i.e., improved visibility.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, pages 26-44.

    Under the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, stationary sources
were required to reduce SO2, NOX, and
PM10. Arizona's Progress Report included annual emissions
data from 2002-2013 for BART sources that are EGUs, BART sources that
are not EGUs, and non-BART sources that were subject to reasonable
progress controls for visibility-impairing emissions. Although there
was variation in emissions during the years between 2002 and 2013, the
emissions for all sources in 2013 were lower than emissions in 2002.
For BART EGU sources, ADEQ noted that although emissions had decreased
from 2002-2013, heat input had increased, indicating that the emissions
reductions were the result of pollution controls, not reduced
operations. ADEQ also noted that for all these facilities, further
reductions were expected to occur by 2018, either due to BART controls
or to reasonable progress controls.\33\ Table 9 summarizes stationary
source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See section III.A above for a summary of these controls and
the associated compliance dates.

                                                    Table 9--Stationary Source Emissions (Tons/Year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              BART sources--EGUs                           BART sources--non-EGUs                         Non-BART, non-EGU
     Year      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      SO2             NOX            PM10            SO2            NOX            PM10           SO2            NOX            PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2002          46,798          32,714       \a\ 1,215         26,330          3,080            996            292          8,895          1,600
        2013          11,025          25,337           1,322         23,364          1,826            607             10          2,649            301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a PM10 data were not available for Sundt (Irvington) Generating Station.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Tables 13-15.

    Arizona's Progress Report also described PM2.5 emissions
that were averted from 2009-2014 through its Enhanced Smoke Management
Program.

C. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    ADEQ's Progress Report provided visibility data for each of the
State's Class I areas during the baseline period (2000-2004), the
current period for the progress report (2009-2013), and for the rolling
5-year periods between the baseline and current periods. The Report
compared those data with the 2018 RPGs for each area. The Report also
compared the visibility progress to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
\34\ for the worst days. However, the RHR does not require a progress
report to compare current or projected visibility conditions to the
URP.\35\ Consequently, the RPGs are the relevant comparison points for
evaluating whether the progress report meets the RHR requirements for
reporting visibility progress during this first planning period. These
RPGs are listed in Table 10 along with the baseline and current (as of
the submission of the Progress Report) visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The URP is a straight line from the baseline visibility
condition (5-year annual average from 2000-2004) to the estimated
natural background condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent
best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are the number of
deciviews where the lines drawn to 2064 for best and worst days
intersect 2018.
    \35\ 79 FR 52419, 52426 (September 3, 2014).

                          Table 10--Arizona Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20 Percent Most and Least Impaired Days a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Best days (deciviews)                  Worst days (deciviews)
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Improve monitor                         Class I area            Baseline                  Current      Baseline                  Current
                                                                             2000-2004     2018 RPG    2009-2013    2000-2004     2018 RPG    2009-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1......................................  Mount Baldy Wilderness.......          3.0          2.8          2.7       b 11.8         11.4         10.5
CHIR1......................................  Chiricahua National Monument,          4.9          4.8          4.1         13.4         13.2         12.1
                                              Chiricahua Wilderness &
                                              Galiuro Wilderness.
GRCA2......................................  Grand Canyon National Park...          2.2          2.0          1.8         11.7         11.0         10.9

IKBA1......................................  Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine             5.4          5.1          4.4         13.3         12.6         12.0
                                              Mountain Wilderness.
PEFO1......................................  Petrified Forest National              5.0          4.6          4.1         13.2         12.6         11.9
                                              Park.
SAGU1......................................  Saguaro National Monument--            6.9          6.9          6.1         14.8         14.7         12.6
                                              East Unit.
SAWE1......................................  Saguaro National Monument--            8.6          8.2          7.5         16.2         15.9         14.2
                                              West Unit.
SIAN1......................................  Sierra Ancha Wilderness......          6.2         5.78          4.9         13.7        13.05         12.2
SYCA2......................................  Sycamore Canyon Wilderness...          5.6         5.39          5.1         15.3        14.92         14.6
TONT1......................................  Superstition Wilderness......          6.5         6.09          5.2         14.2        13.72         12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 17.
a Due to rounding, some values in this table differ slightly from those in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
\b\ The baseline worst days value for BALD1 was incorrectly listed as 11.95 deciviews in Tables 9 and 10 in the EPA's Phase 3 FIP final rule. 79 FR
  52469-52470 (September 3, 2014). The correct value of 11.85 deciviews is found in Arizona's 2011 Submittal, Table 6.3.

    Based on the information in Chapter 4 of the Progress Report,
Arizona demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility (i.e., reductions in deciviews) for the 20-percent most and
least impaired days between the baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-
2013) visibility periods, as summarized in Table 10 above and shown in
Table 17 of the Progress Report. The same table also shows that the
five-year average worst days and best days during the current (2009-
2013) period were below (i.e., better than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, all of
the State's Class I areas are on track to meet or surpass their 2018
RPGs. As part of a comprehensive SIP revision due by July 31, 2021, the
State will be required to adopt 2028 RPGs, which will reflect new
control measures adopted to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule and other CAA requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Progress Report explains that the significant
reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions discussed in
the previous section have also mitigated Arizona's contribution to
visibility impairment in Class I areas in nearby states.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Progress Report also contains a review of Arizona's visibility
monitoring strategy. In the Progress Report, ADEQ notes that the Grand
Canyon--Indian Garden IMPROVE monitoring station shut down in 2013. The
Report states that Arizona uses the GRCA2 monitoring station for Grand
Canyon National Park, so the closure of the Indian Gardens monitor will
not affect the reliability of the IMPROVE network in Arizona.

D. Determination of Adequacy

    Within the Progress Report, the State of Arizona provided a
negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1). The basis for the State's negative declaration is the
information in the Progress Report and the determination that Arizona
is currently on track to achieve all 2018 RPGs for the State's Class I
areas. Given the large reductions in SO2 and NOX
emissions and the significant improvements in visibility at the State's
Class I areas achieved during the planning period, the EPA proposes to
approve Arizona's determination that the existing Arizona SIP requires
no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established 2018
RPGs for Class I areas. As mentioned above, the State is required to
submit a comprehensive SIP revision for the next planning period,
including RPGs for 2028, by July 31, 2021.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The State of Arizona invited the FLMs to comment on its draft
progress report on August 24, 2015. Arizona received comments from one
FLM, the National Park Service, which indicated that the Progress
Report met the applicable requirements and requested additional
information and other minor changes. ADEQ responded to the FLM comments
and revised the Progress Report accordingly, as documented in Appendix
A of the Progress Report. The EPA proposes to find that Arizona has
addressed the requirements for FLM consultation in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Arizona Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on November 12, 2015, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to approve Arizona's determination that the
existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet the
State's 2018 visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at
this time. We also propose to find that Arizona fulfilled the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with
FLMs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations.\39\ 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 proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not 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 rule does not have tribal implications 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 14, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-05769 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

DATE:

October 14, 2009

SUBJECT:

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Amendments to Existing Regulation Provisions Concerning
Case-by-Case Reasonably Available Control Technology

Technical Support Document

FROM:

	Gregory Becoat, Environmental Scientist /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

TO:

REVIEWED BY:	SIP Docket File

              /s/

Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

I.	Affected Regulation

This revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia Sate Implementation Plan
(SIP) applies to amendments to the Commonwealth existing regulations in
order to clarify and recodify provisions covering case-by-case
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and to add the 1997
8-hour ozone standard requirements.

II.	 Background

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 On September 8, 2008, the Commonwealth of
Virginia submitted a regulation revision for case-by-case RACT
determinations, which consists of amendments to the existing regulations
in order to implement the non-CTG RACT-specific 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area requirements of subpart X of 40 CFR Part 51, and to
restructure and recodify the regulations for clarity.  Along with this
revision, the Commonwealth of Virginia included in their submittal,
certification of public participation activities and compliance with
state administrative procedures, a record of hearing, and summary of
testimony.

Under the authority of §10.1-1308 of the Code of Virginia and pursuant
to the requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the State
Air Pollution Control Board amended regulations to Emission Standards
for General Process Operations, Rule 4-4 (Article 4 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter
40) and Emission Standards for Stationary Sources Subject to
Case-by-Case RACT Determinations, Rule 4-51 (Article 51 of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40).  In addition to clarifying and recodifying the existing
provisions covering case-by-case RACT determinations, the regulation
amendments creates a new Article 51 in order to separate the
RACT-specific requirements from the general process requirements of
Article 4.  These amendments consist only of changes in style or form.

The regulation amendments also add the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
requirements set forth by the CAA.  40 CFR Part 51 sets out requirements
for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of SIPs.  Subpart X to 40
CFR Part 51 specifically defines the provisions for implementation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
The rule specifies dates by when states must submit their RACT SIPs, and
when RACT must be implemented.  The rule also requires that
nonattainment areas meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.900(f), which
includes RACT and major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of
RACT.

A. What is RACT?

Since the 1970's EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.  See, e.g., 72 FR
20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007).  Decisions on RACT may be made on a
case-by-case basis, considering the technological and economic
circumstances of individual source (57 FR 55624, November 25, 1992).
EPA has issued numerous control technique guidelines (CTG) documents, in
order to control emissions from stationary sources of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions.  Each CTG addresses the presumptive level for
RACT for a specific source category.  Under the CAA, section 182 (b)(2),
as amended in 1990, the SIP for ozone nonattainment areas, classified as
moderate or higher, requires states to adopt RACT rules for all major
stationary sources of VOC emissions, which are not covered by a CTG
document; this latter requirement is called “non-CTG VOC RACT.”  In
the absence of a waiver granted by EPA, the CAA, section 182 (f) also
requires the SIP for the same ozone nonattainment areas to contain
regulations for the implementation of RACT by all major stationary
sources for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions; this requirement for sources
of NOx emissions is called NOx RACT.

B.  Virginia’s RACT rules

Virginia’s RACT regulations are currently found in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40
– Existing Stationary Sources, in Part II – Emission Standards,
Article 4 – General Process Operations (Rule 4-4), in regulations 9
VAC 5-40-300 - Standard for volatile organic compounds, 9 VAC 5-40-310 -
Standard for nitrogen oxides and 9 VAC 5-40-311 - Reasonably available
control technology guidelines for stationary sources of nitrogen oxides,
in the Virginia SIP.

Regulation 9 VAC 5-40-300 - Standard for volatile organic compounds
prohibits VOC emissions caused from any affected facility in excess of
that resultant from using RACT.  The provisions of this section apply to
all emission units that (i) are within a stationary source in the
Northern Virginia or Richmond Emissions Control Area (see 9 VAC 5-20-206
- Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions control
areas) and (ii) are within a stationary source that has a theoretical
potential to emit 25 tons per year or greater in the Northern Virginia
Emissions Control Area, or 100 tons per year or greater in the Richmond
Emissions Control Area.  Theoretical potential to emit shall be based on
emissions at design capacity or maximum production and maximum operating
hours (8,760 hours/year) before add-on controls, unless the emissions
unit is subject to state and federally enforceable permit conditions
which limit production rates or hours of operation.

Regulation 9 VAC 5-40-310 - Standard for nitrogen oxides prohibits NOx
emissions caused from any affected facility in excess of that resultant
from using RACT.  The provisions of this section apply to all emissions
units that (i) are within a stationary source in the Northern Virginia
or Western Virginia Emissions Control Area (see 9 VAC 5-20-206) and (ii)
are within a stationary source that has a theoretical potential to emit
25 tons per year or greater in the Northern Virginia Emissions Control
Area, or 100 tons per year or greater in the Western Virginia Emissions
Control Area.  Theoretical potential to emit shall be based on emissions
at design capacity or maximum production and maximum operating hours
(8,760 hours/year) before add-on controls, unless the emissions unit is
subject to state and federally enforceable permit conditions which limit
production rates or hours of operation.  For certain source types,
regulation 9 VAC 5-40-310 requires meeting the applicable, presumptive
emissions limit found in 9 VAC 5-40-311 – Reasonably available control
technology guidelines for stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, unless
the owner demonstrates otherwise to the satisfaction of the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Board on a source-specific basis.

Regulation 9 VAC 5-40-311 - Reasonably available control technology
guidelines for stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, unless otherwise
approved by the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, defines NOx RACT
for certain source categories in terms of maximum allowable emission
rates for the purposes of compliance with 9 VAC 5-40-310.  The covered
source categories are steam generating units, process heaters, and gas
turbines.

The Northern Virginia and Western Virginia Emissions Control Areas are
defined in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-206 of the Virginia SIP.  Virginia
voluntarily elected to expand its NOx RACT regulation to the Western
Virginia Emissions Control Area as part of its SIP to adopt and
implement measures to reduce ozone precursor pollutants.  See 70 FR
21625, April 27, 2005.  The Richmond 1-hour ozone maintenance area, that
is, the Richmond Emissions Control Area, was exempted from the
requirement to implement NOx RACT for purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in a final rule granting Virginia’s petition to exclude this area
pursuant to CAA section 182(f).  See EPA's July 21, 1997 (62 FR 38922)
final rulemaking to waive the NOx RACT requirements of section 182(f) of
the CAA in the Richmond area.

III.	Summary of Action

On September 8, 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
regulation revision for case-by-case RACT determinations.  As part of
Virginia’s rulemaking, Virginia made the state regulations consistent
with the federal regulations in order for the Commonwealth to implement
RACT. The purpose of this revision to the SIP is to accomplish the
following changes:

1.  Creates Rule 4-51 (Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40) - Emission
Standards for Stationary Sources Subject to Case-by-Case RACT
Determinations, in order to separate the RACT-specific requirements from
the general process requirements of Article 4 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40.
Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 consists of the following regulations:
9 VAC 5-40-7370 - Applicability and designation of affected facility, 9
VAC 5-40-7380 - Definitions, 9 VAC 5-40-7390 - Standard for volatile
organic compounds (1-hour ozone standard), 9 VAC 5-40-7400 - Standard
for volatile organic compounds (8-hour ozone standard), 9 VAC 5-40-7410
- Standard for nitrogen oxides (1-hour ozone standard), 9 VAC 5-40-7420
- Standard for nitrogen oxides (8-hour ozone standard), 9 VAC 5-40-7430
- Presumptive reasonably available control technology guidelines for
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, 9 VAC 5-40-7440 - Standard for
visible emissions, 9 VAC 5-40-7450 - Standard for fugitive
dust/emissions, 9 VAC 5-40-7480 - Compliance, 9 VAC 5-40-7490 - Test
methods and procedures, 9 VAC 5-40-7500 - Monitoring, 9 VAC 5-40-7510 -
Notification, records and reporting, 9 VAC 5-40-7520 - Registration, 9
VAC 5-40-7530 - Facility and control equipment maintenance or
malfunction, and 9 VAC 5-40-7540 - Permits.

2.  Makes administrative changes to the SIP.  This revision modifies 9
VAC 5-40-250 - Definitions by adding an “s” to “meaning” in 9
VAC 5-40-250A and 9 VAC 5-40-250B.

3.  Removes the definition of “Reasonably available control
technology” in 9 VAC 5-40-250B of Article 4 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 and
adds it to 9 VAC 5-40-7380 - Definitions in Article 51 of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40.  This revision also adds the following definitions to
regulation 9 VAC 5-40-7380C:  “Presumptive RACT,” “Theoretical
potential to emit,” and “Tpy.”

4.  Repeals 9 VAC 5-40-300 - Standard for volatile organic compounds, 9
VAC 5-40-310 - Standard for nitrogen oxides, and 9 VAC 5-40-311 -
Reasonably available control technology guidelines for stationary
sources of nitrogen oxides in Article 4 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 and
replaces them with 9 VAC 5-40-7390 - Standard for volatile organic
compounds (1-hour ozone standard), 9 VAC 5-40-7410 - Standard for
nitrogen oxides (1-hour ozone standard), and 9 VAC 5-40-7430 -
Presumptive reasonably available control technology guidelines for
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, respectively, in Article 51 of 9
VAC 5 Chapter 40.  In addition, the following changes were made to the
regulations:  “Notification and Compliance Dates for Facilities
Located in VOC Emissions Control Areas” in 9 VAC 5-40-300 was modified
from paragraph form to table form (Table 4-51A) in 9 VAC 5-40-7390.
“Notification and Compliance Dates for Facilities Located in NOx
Emissions Control Areas for Which There is No Presumptive RACT” and
“Notification and Compliance Dates for Facilities Located in NOx
Emissions Control Areas for Which Presumptive RACT is Defined” in 9
VAC 5-40-310 were modified from paragraph form to table form (Table
4-51C and Table 4-51D), respectively, in 9 VAC 5-40-7410.  The
definitions in 9 VAC 5-40-311B.3 - Terms defined, were replaced with 9
VAC 5-40-7380C - Terms defined, in Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40.

5.  Adds 9 VAC 5-40-7400 - Standard for volatile organic compounds
(8-hour ozone standard), and 9 VAC 5-40-7420 - Standard for nitrogen
oxides (8-hour ozone standard) to Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40.
This revision adds the 1997 8-hour ozone standard requirements for RACT
and specifies dates by when states must submit their RACT SIPs, and when
RACT must be implemented.   The revision also makes Virginia’s
regulations consistent with the federal regulations in order to
implement RACT.

IV. Evaluation

1.  EPA approves the creation of Rule 4-51 (Article 51 of 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40) - Emission Standards for Stationary Sources Subject to
Case-by-Case RACT Determinations, in order to separate the RACT-specific
requirements from the general process requirements of Article 4 of 9 VAC
5 Chapter 40.  EPA approves this revision to the SIP because the
administrative re-codification simply consists of changes in style or
form, resulting in regulations that are easier to read and understand.
This revision does not change the substance of the SIP and consequently,
does not interfere with timely attainment or progress towards attainment
of a NAAQS, nor interfere with any other provision of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.

2.  EPA views the modification of 9 VAC 5-40-250 as an administrative
change to the SIP.  EPA approves such modification because the
administrative change does not change the substance of the SIP and
consequently, cannot interfere with timely attainment or progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS, nor interfere with any other provision of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

3.  EPA approves the removal of the definition of “Reasonably
available control technology” in 9 VAC 5-40-250B and its’ addition
to 9 VAC 5-40-7380, as well as the addition of the following definitions
to regulation 9 VAC 5-40-7380C:  “Presumptive RACT,” “Theoretical
potential to emit,” and “Tpy.”  EPA believes that these revisions
do not affect the scope of the currently approved Virginia SIP and
consequently, does not interfere with timely attainment or progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS, nor interfere with any other provision of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

4.  EPA views the portions of the submitted SIP revision identified as
revision E04 that would repeal 9 VAC 5-40-300, 9 VAC 5-40-310, and 9 VAC
5-40-311 in Article 4 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 and replace them with 9 VAC
5-40-7390, 9 VAC 5-40-7410, and 9 VAC 5-40-7430, respectively, in
Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, as administrative re-codifications.
Additionally, EPA views the replacement of the definitions in 9 VAC
5-40-311B.3 - Terms defined with 9 VAC 5-40-7380C - Terms defined in
Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 as an administrative change.  EPA
approves such portions of revision E04 because the re-codifications and
administrative change do not change the substance of the SIP and
consequently, does not interfere with timely attainment or progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS, nor interferes with any other provision
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

5.  EPA approves the addition of 9 VAC 5-40-7400 - Standard for volatile
organic compounds (8-hour ozone standard), and 9 VAC 5-40-7420 -
Standard for nitrogen oxides (8-hour ozone standard) to Article 51 of 9
VAC 5 Chapter 40 in order to add the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
requirements for RACT and make Virginia’s regulations consistent with
the federal regulations in order to implement RACT.  EPA’s approval of
Virginia’s 8-hour ozone RACT SIP revision for the Virginia portion
(Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park; Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William) of
the Washington-DC-MD-VA area (74 FR 28444, June 16, 2009) and Stafford
County (73 FR 78192, December 22, 2008) allows for the addition of 9 VAC
5-40-7400 and 9 VAC 5-40-7420 into Virginia’s regulations. However,
regulation 9 VAC 5-40-7420F and G incorrectly cross-references the
Commonwealth’s VOC regulations at 9 VAC 5-40-7390, instead of its NOx
regulation at 9 VAC 5-40-7410.  The Commonwealth is in the process of
correcting the cross-references in this regulation and will submit the
correction to EPA.  EPA does not intend to finalize this action until
after the Commonwealth formally submits the corrected versions of 9 VAC
5-40-7420 F and G to EPA as part of this SIP revision.  EPA does not
intend to reopen the comment period before taking final action on this
SIP revision.

V.  Conclusion

This SIP revision request satisfies all requirements for an acceptable
SIP revision.

VI. Recommended Agency Action

The SIP revision request should be approved.

 Under the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) “9 VAC 5” denotes
Title 9 which is the designated title for provisions related to the
environment, and the “5” is an “Agency Number” that denotes
corresponds to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),
Bureau of Air Pollution Control.

 Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area consist of Cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park; Counties
of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William.  Richmond Emissions Control Area consist of
Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond; Counties
of Charles City, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Prince George.

 Western Virginia Emissions Control Area consist of Cities of Roanoke,
Salem, and Winchester; Counties of Botetourt, Frederick, and Roanoke.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 23289]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No., EL16-17-000]

City of West Memphis, Arkansas; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 13, 2016, the City of West Memphis,
Arkansas submitted a second supplement to its November 19, 2015
application for proposed rate for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 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 April 20, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09086 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 25, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-24427

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   DELTA AIRLINES, INC.,  filed 4/5/06 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, and Leon/Guanajuato, Mexico.  Delta states
that it requests this authority so that Delta can place its “DL”
designator code on nonstop “Delta Connection” flights to be operated
by Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA) in the market beginning
December 1, 2006.  Delta further states that these flights will be
operated on a year-round basis, using 70-seat CRJ-700 aircraft.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda Lundell
(202)366-2336

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: May 25, 2006,  through  May
25, 2008, or until 90 days after final Department action on Delta’s
corresponding certificate application in Docket OST-1999-6275, whichever
occurs earlier.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2, and is limited to code-share services only.
Consistent with our standard policy, the dormancy notice period will
begin December 1, 2006, Delta’s startup date for the proposed
services.

- see next page -

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 C.F.R. 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected; and

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
Delta nor ASA shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

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

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59523-59524]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F St NE., Washington,
DC 20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 15c1-7,
    SEC File No. 270-146, OMB Control No.3235-0134.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-7 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c1-7 states that any act of a broker-dealer designed to
effect securities transactions with or for a customer account over
which the broker-dealer (directly or through an agent or employee) has
discretion will be considered a fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive
practice under the federal securities laws, unless a record is made of
the transaction immediately by the broker-dealer. The record must
include (a) the name of the customer, (b) the name, amount, and price
of the security, and (c) the date and time when such transaction took
place.

    The Commission estimates that 446 respondents collect information
related to approximately 400,000 transactions annually under Rule 15c1-
7 and that each respondent would spend approximately 5 minutes on the
collection of information for each transaction, for approximately
33,333 aggregate hours per year (approximately 74.7 hours per
respondent).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     September 26, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23452 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P