[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36359-36368]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12075]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0621; FRL-10008-52-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional
Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a regional haze progress report State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Utah on March 7, 2016. The revision
addresses the requirements for states to submit periodic reports
describing progress toward reasonable progress goals established for
regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the State's regional
haze SIP. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0621, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission,
for this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    On March 7, 2016, Utah submitted a Progress Report SIP revision
(Progress Report) which: (1) Detailed the progress made toward
achieving progress for improving visibility at Class I areas,\1\ and
(2) declared a determination of adequacy of the State's regional haze
plan to meet reasonable progress goals. The State provided a public
hearing for comment on the Progress Report on December 1, 2014 and
provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) an opportunity to comment on the
Progress Report. The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016
regional haze Progress Report SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal 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). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (Nov. 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class
I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility they consider
to be an important value, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class
I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``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.''
    The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\2\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations \3\ to integrate provisions addressing regional haze and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the
Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
    \3\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).
    \4\ 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\5\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA.
If a state elects not to make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a
required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal
is incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a federal
implementation plant (FIP) to fill this regulatory gap.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309

    The EPA's Regional Haze Rule provides two paths to address regional
haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, which requires states to perform individual

point source best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations
and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The other method
for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option
for states termed the ``Transport Region States,'' including Utah.
Transport Region States can adopt regional haze strategies based on
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.\7\
The GCVTC submitted an annex to the EPA, known as the Backstop Trading
Program, containing annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
reduction milestones and detailed provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented automatically if measures failed to achieve
the SO2 milestones. Utah submitted a regional haze SIP under
40 CFR 51.309 to address stationary source SO2 emissions
reductions and submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii) to address stationary source nitrogen oxide
(NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    Under both 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, states are required to
submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable
progress goals for each mandatory federal 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. In addition, the provisions also
require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP.
The first progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and is
due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    As a Transport Region State, Utah submitted its Progress Report SIP
under 40 CFR 51.309, and exercised the option to meet the requirements
contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze implementation plans.\8\
The requirements for Transport Region State progress reports are
similar to those for other states, but the requirements for the reports
are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Progress Report
for Utah's State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze (Utah
Progress Report), page F-8 (Feb. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory and Legal History of the Utah Regional Haze SIP and FIP

    On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted regional haze SIP revisions
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that, for the most part,
superseded and replaced regional haze SIP revisions submitted on
December 12, 2003, August 8, 2004, and September 9, 2008.\9\ On
December 14, 2012, the EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule except for the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM
BART.\10\ On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah submitted to the EPA a
revision to its Regional Haze SIP to address the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM BART, which
included an alternative to BART.\11\ On July 5, 2016, we partially
approved and partially disapproved the June 4, 2015 SIP revision.\12\
Specifically, the EPA approved the State's PM BART determination, but
disapproved Utah's BART alternative for NOX. The EPA
promulgated a FIP for those portions of the SIP that were
disapproved.\13\ Several parties challenged the NOX BART
FIP.\14\ As a result of the litigation, on September 11, 2017, the
EPA's July 5, 2016 final rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.\15\ On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a subsequent
SIP revision intended to replace the NOX BART FIP for
PacifiCorp's Hunter and Huntington power plants.\16\ The SIP revision
provides an alternative to BART for Hunter and Huntington that would
provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility
conditions than BART. On January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve
the July 3, 2019 SIP revision.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We only acted on the state rules associated with the
Backstop Trading Program and emissions inventories in the 2008
submittal because the 2011 submittal superseded and replaced all
other sections. We took no action on the December 12, 2003, and
August 8, 2004, submittals because these were superseded entirely by
the 2011 submittal. 77 FR 74355, 74356 (Dec.14, 2012).
    \10\ 77 FR at 74357.
    \11\ A State must demonstrate that a BART alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2), (e)(3).
    \12\ 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
    \13\ 81 FR at 43896, 43907.
    \14\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.); PacifiCorp v. EPA,
No. 16-9542 (10th Cir.); Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems v.
EPA, No. 16-9543 (10th Cir.); Deseret Generation Transmission
Cooperative v. EPA, No. 16-9545 (10th Cir.).
    \15\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.), ECF No. 10496767.
    \16\ On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted a supplement to the
July 2019 SIP submission that includes an amendment to the
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
    \17\ 85 FR 3558 (Jan. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah's Progress
Report and the State's determination that the existing regional haze
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision. Utah's
Progress Report must meet the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i). The State must also provide a determination of the
adequacy of the existing implementation plan to ensure reasonable
progress. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii). If the State determines that the
existing implementation plan requires no further revision, then the
State must provide a negative declaration that further revision of the
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Id.
    As previously noted, on January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to
approve a SIP revision that provides a BART alternative for the Hunter
and Huntington power plants.\18\ The EPA has not yet taken final action
to approve the proposed SIP revision, and the EPA is not prejudging the
outcome of that rulemaking process. We note that in the event the
proposed SIP revision is not finalized, there is already a FIP in place
which addresses the previously identified SIP deficiencies. Thus,
regardless of whether the EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the
Utah SIP revision for the Hunter and Huntington power plants, Utah will
have an implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional
haze requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
    Utah's Progress Report must include a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both
within and outside of the State. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A).
    In its Progress Report, Utah summarized the regional haze measures
that were relied upon in the regional

haze SIP, as well as the SO2 emissions reduction strategies
implemented by sources in New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming under the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program. The State referenced the
SO2 emissions for sources associated with the SO2
Backstop Trading Program \19\ found within the 2013 Regional
SO2 Emissions and Milestones Report \20\ (Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Utah Progress Report, page F-12.
    \20\ Western Regional Air Partnership, 2013 Regional SO2
Emissions and Milestone Report (March 18, 2015).
    \21\ In 2013, three states participated in the SO2
Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions from all three
participating states are recorded and collectively compared to the
milestone.

  Table 1--Reported Emissions for Sources Associated With the Backstop
                          Trading Program \21\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reported 2013
                                                           SO2 emissions
           State                     Plant name               (tons)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM........................  Agave Energy Co./Agave                    14
                             Dagger Draw Gas Plant.
NM........................  Frontier Field Services/                 478
                             Empire Abo Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas                284
                             Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Eunice Gas               3,044
                             Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Linam Ranch                648
                             Gas Plant.
NM........................  Duke--Magnum/Pan Energy--                  0
                             Burton Flats.
NM........................  Duke Energy/Dagger Draw Gas                0
                             Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LP/              184
                             Eunice Gas Plant.
NM........................  Frontier Field Services/               2,244
                             Maljamar Gas Plant.
NM........................  Western Refining Southwest                34
                             Inc-Gallup Refinery.
NM........................  Davis Gas Processing/Denton              972
                             Plant.
NM........................  OXY USA WTP Limited                       44
                             Partnership--Indian Basin
                             Gas Plant.
NM........................  Navajo Refining Co/Artesia                39
                             Refinery.
NM........................  Public Service Co of New               6,076
                             Mexico/San Juan Generating
                             Station.
NM........................  Raton Pub. Service/Raton                   0
                             Power Plant.
NM........................  Regency Field Services/Jal             1,002
                             #3.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LP/                0
                             Eunice South Gas Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LLC/             723
                             Monument Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LLC/             369
                             Saunders Plant.
NM........................  Tri-State Gen & Transmission/            951
                             Escalante Station.
NM........................  Western Gas Resources/San                 58
                             Juan River Gas Plant.
NM........................  Western Refining Southwest                 0
                             Inc./Bloomfield Products
                             Terminal.
NM........................  ConocoPhillips-Midland                   195
                             Office/MCA Tank Battery No.
                             2.
NM........................  ConocoPhillips-Midland                   156
                             Office/East Vacuum Liquid
                             Recovery and CO2 Plant.
UT........................  Brigham Young University--               120
                             Main Campus.
UT........................  Chevron Products Co--Salt                 26
                             Lake Refinery.
UT........................  Big West Oil Company--Flying              45
                             J Refinery.
UT........................  Graymont Western US Inc--                 52
                             Cricket Mountain Plant.
UT........................  Holcim--Devil's Slide Plant.             172
UT........................  Holly Refining and Marketing             101
                             Co--Phillips Refinery.
UT........................  Intermountain Power Service            4,724
                             Corporation--Intermountain
                             Generating Station.
UT........................  Kennecott Utah Copper Corp--           1,810
                             Power Plant/Lab/Tailings
                             Impoundment.
UT........................  Kennecott Utah Copper Corp--             727
                             Smelter and Refinery.
UT........................  Materion Natural Resources--               0
                             Delta Mill.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Carbon Power               7,702
                             Plant.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Hunter Power               5,055
                             Plant.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Huntington Power           2,409
                             Plant.
UT........................  Patara Midstream LLC Lisbon                5
                             Natural Gas Processing
                             Plant.
UT........................  Sunnyside Cogeneration                   917
                             Associates--Sunnyside
                             Cogeneration Facility.
UT........................  Tesoro West Coast--Salt Lake             664
                             City Refinery.
UT........................  Utelite Corporation--Shale                80
                             Processing.
WY........................  American Colloid Mineral Co--             96
                             East Colony.
WY........................  American Colloid Mineral Co--              0
                             West Colony.
WY........................  Basin Electric--Dry Fork                 830
                             Station.
WY........................  Basin Electric--Laramie                9,286
                             River Station.
WY........................  Big Horn Gas Processing--Big               0
                             Horn/Byron Gas Plant.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                879
                             Neil Simpson I.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                511
                             Neil Simpson II.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                  0
                             Osage Plant.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                566
                             Wygen I.
WY........................  Cheyenne Light Fuel and                  172
                             Power Company--Wygen II.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                315
                             Wygen III.
WY........................  Burlington Resources--                     0
                             Bighorn Wells.
WY........................  Burlington Resources--Lost             1,998
                             Cabin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Carter Creek                596
                             Gas Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Table Rock                    0
                             Field.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Table Rock Gas               22
                             Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Whitney Canyon/               3
                             Carter Creek Wellfield.
WY........................  Devon Energy Production Co.,               2
                             L.P.--Beaver Creek Gas
                             Field.
WY........................  Devon Gas Services, L.P.--                49
                             Beaver Creek Gas Plant.

WY........................  Encore Operating LP--Elk                 824
                             Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Exxon Mobil Corporation--                139
                             Labarge Black Canyon
                             Facility.
WY........................  Exxon Mobil Corporation--                885
                             Shute Creek.
WY........................  FMC Corp--Green River Sodium           2,942
                             Products.
WY........................  FMC Wyoming Corporation                  344
                             Granger Soda Ash Plant.
WY........................  Frontier Oil & Refining                  267
                             Company--Cheyenne Refinery.
WY........................  Worland Plant...............              25
WY........................  Marathon Oil Co--Oregon                  182
                             Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Marathon Oil Co--Oregon                   40
                             Basin Wellfield.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--Brady              316
                             Gas Plant.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--                     1
                             Whitney Facility.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--                     0
                             Whitney Canyon Wellfield.
WY........................  Mountain Cement Company--                273
                             Laramie Plant.
WY........................  P4 Production, L.L.C.--Rock              754
                             Springs Coal Calcining
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Dave Johnston              8,648
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Jim Bridger               11,397
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Naughton Plant..           6,741
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Wyodak Plant....           2,236
WY........................  Simplot Phosphates LLC--Rock           1,222
                             Springs Plant.
WY........................  Sinclair Oil Company--                   154
                             Sinclair Refinery.
WY........................  Sinclair Wyoming Refining                225
                             Company--Casper Refinery.
WY........................  Solvay Chemicals--Soda Ash                42
                             Plant (Green River
                             Facility).
WY........................  TATA Chemicals (Soda Ash               4,662
                             Partners)--Green River
                             Plant.
WY........................  The Western Sugar                        203
                             Cooperative--Torrington
                             Plant.
WY........................  University of Wyoming--Heat              160
                             Plant.
WY........................  Wyoming Refining--Newcastle              263
                             Refinery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah's Progress Report identified four stationary sources subject
to BART: PacifiCorp Hunter Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington
Units 1 and 2. The status of control measures associated with PM and
NOX emissions for these four units in addition to the three
other units included in the June 2015 and July 2019 BART alternatives
are provided in Table 2. As explained above, the EPA has proposed but
not yet taken final action with respect to Utah's BART alternative for
the Hunter and Huntington Units.

     Table 2--Control Measures and Updates for Sources Subject to BART and the BART Alternative in Utah \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM emission limit   NOX control type   NOX emission limit
              Unit                  PM control type         \1\ \2\                                   \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Unit 1...................  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      Low-NOX burners     0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (LNB) + separated   day rolling).
                                   2014).              average).           overfire air
                                                                           (SOFA) (completed
                                                                           in 2014).
Hunter Unit 2...................  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2011).              average).           2011).
Hunter Unit 3...................  NA................  NA................  LNB + SOFA          0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                                                           (completed in       day rolling).
                                                                           2008)\4\.
Huntington Unit 1...............  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2010).              average).           2010).
Huntington Unit 2...............  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2006).              average).           2006).
Carbon Unit 1...................  NA................  Shutdown by August  NA................  Shutdown by August
                                                       15, 2015.                               15, 2015.
Carbon Unit 2...................  NA................  Shutdown by August  NA................  Shutdown by August
                                                       15, 2015.                               15, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on annual stack testing.
\2\ The BART PM emissions limits were previously approved in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR at 43907.
\3\ Based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement.
\4\ 81 FR 2004, 2018 (Jan. 14, 2016).

    In addition to summarizing the status of the SO2
Backstop Trading Program and PM and NOX BART controls, Utah
provides an update on the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which
provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use
prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland

fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah.\23\ Federal and
state land managers and the Utah Department of Air Quality formed the
Utah Airshed Oversight Group to manage, oversee, and evaluate the SMP.
After being certified by the EPA in 1999, the SMP, in accordance with
evaluations conducted by the Utah Airshed Oversight Group, was revised
in 2006 and 2014 and included the transition to a web-based burn
permitting program. In its Progress Report, the State provides the
status of Utah's alternative treatments to fire and agricultural
burning in addition to the 2011 prescribed fire emissions (Table
3).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Obtained from the July 2019 Utah regional haze SIP
submittal, Section IX.H.22. The measures in the NOX BART
alternative of the July 2019 SIP submittal are identical to those in
the alternative in the June 2015 SIP submittal (i.e. Utah submitted
the same NOX BART alternative in the June 2015 and July
2019 SIPs). As explained above, the EPA proposed to approve the July
2019 SIP on January 22, 2020. 85 FR at 3558. By including these SIP
measures here, the EPA is not prejudging the outcome of its ongoing
rulemaking process regarding the 2019 SIP.
    \23\ Utah Progress Report, page F-14-F-16.
    \24\ Utah Progress Report, page F-15.

                                   Table 3--Prescribed Fire Emissions in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Projects
             Agency                 implemented     Black acres   Tons  consumed   Tons of PM10      Percent %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs........               2           3,900          56,550             707               2
Bureau of Land Management.......              21           1,621          11,722             134              19
Forest Service..................              44          10,484         194,837           2,385              40
Fish and Wildlife Service.......               4           2,505           7,453              39               4
National Park Service...........               9             429           5,024              67               8
Utah Division of Forestry, Fire,              29           3,074          28,570             333              27
 and State Lands................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................             109          22,013         304,156           3,665             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Utah also provides status updates in the Progress Report
for the Clean Air Corridor,\25\ Pollution Prevention and Renewable
Energy,\26\ mobile sources, comprehensive emissions tracking system,
New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, New Source Review, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology, and other Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
recommendations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Clean Air Corridor is an area covering major portions
of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho
intended to represent a region from which clean air transport
influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park.
Utah Progress Report, page F-16.
    \26\ The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission set a goal
of achieving 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in
2005 and 20 percent in 2015. Utah reports that significant progress
has been made towards these goals. Utah Progress Report, page F-17.
    \27\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-18-F-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress
Report provides documentation of the implementation of control measures
within Utah, including the BART-eligible sources.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved
    Utah's Progress Report must include a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
    In its Progress Report, Utah presents information on emissions
reductions achieved from the pollution control strategies discussed
above. The State provides regional SO2 emissions from 2003
through 2013 (Table 4) as well as statewide SO2,
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass emissions in 2002
and 2008. (Table 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Utah Progress Report, page F-20; see also Western
Regional Air Partnership, 309 Committee: Documents, https://www.wrapair.org//forums/309/docs.html (last visited April 3, 2020).
This Table represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/
milestone for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County. Adjustments to reported emissions are required to allow the
basis of current emissions estimates to account for changes in
monitoring and calculation methods.

                               Table 4--Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestones \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Adjusted  reported  SO2
                             Year                                   emissions  (tons)       Adjusted  regional
                                                                                milestone  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..........................................................                * 330,679                * 447,383
2004..........................................................                * 337,970                * 448,259
2005..........................................................                * 304,591                * 446,903
2006..........................................................               ** 279,134                ** 20,194
2007..........................................................               ** 273,663               ** 420,637
2008..........................................................               ** 244,189                  378,398
2009..........................................................                  143,704                  234,903
2010..........................................................                  131,124                  200,722
2011..........................................................                  117,976                  200,722
2012..........................................................                   96,246                  200,722
2013..........................................................                  101,381                  185,795
2014..........................................................                   92,533                  170,868
2015..........................................................                   81,454                  155,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, and
  Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.
** Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-
  Bernalillo County. Figures with no asterisk represent the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for New Mexico,
  Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.

  Table 5--SO2, NOX, Ammonia, Volatile Organic Compounds, Primary Organic Aerosol, Elemental Carbon, Fine Soil,
                                         and Coarse Mass Emissions \29\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference between
                                       2002 Emissions [dagger]  2008 Emissions [Dagger]       2002 and 2008
              Pollutant                       (tons/year)              (tons/year)       emissions  (tons/year)/
                                                                                percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide.......................                   54,083                   31,190              -22,892/-42
Nitrogen Oxides......................                  239,969                  193,322              -38,262/-19
Ammonia..............................                   29,999                   39,744                 9,745/32
Volatile Organic Compounds...........                  827,515                  396,449             -431,066/-52
Primary Organic Aerosol..............                   29,407                    7,547              -21,860/-74
Elemental Carbon.....................                    8,769                    4,098               -4,671/-53
Fine Soil............................                   14,877                   28,536                13,659/92
Coarse Mass..........................                   97,500                  214,745             117,245/>100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Plan02d.
[Dagger] WestJump2008.

    The emissions data show that there were decreases in emissions of
SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds, primary
organic aerosol, and elemental carbon. Furthermore, regional
SO2 emissions have been below the milestone every year.
According to the State, increases in emissions of coarse and fine
particulate between 2002 and 2008 (>100 percent and 92 percent,
respectively) may be due to enhancements in dust inventory methodology
rather than changes in actual emissions.\30\ Similarly, ammonia
emissions increased by 32 percent between 2002 and 2008. According to
the State, increases in ammonia emissions, which are predominantly from
area sources and on-road mobile sources, may be due to a combination of
population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate
these emissions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-50-F-57.
    \30\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
    \31\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately summarized
the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State in its Progress
Report as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In meeting this
requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify emissions
reductions for measures which had not yet been implemented or for which
the compliance date had not yet been reached at the time progress
reports are finalized.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Utah Progress Report is dated May 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for each mandatory Class I
area within the State, Utah must assess the following visibility
conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least
impaired days \33\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of these
annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment,
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
In the context of 40 CFR 51.309 and this document, ``most impaired''
and ``worst'' have the same meaning and ``least impaired'' and
``best'' have the same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired
and least impaired days.
    ii. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions
for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility
conditions.
    iii. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
    In its Progress Report, Utah provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. There are five
Class I areas located in Utah: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park,
and Zion National Park. Monitoring and data representing visibility
conditions in Utah's five Class I areas is based on the four
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring sites located across the State (Table 6).

             Table 6--Utah's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class I area                         IMPROVE site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park....................  CANY1
Bryce Canyon National Park..............  BRCA1
Canyonlands National Park...............  CANY1
Capitol Reef National Park..............  CAPI1
Zion National Park......................  ZICA1 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ZICA1 monitoring site replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003.

    The Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the
difference between the baseline period visibility conditions, progress
period visibility conditions, and current period visibility conditions
with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst days) and least
impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). Table 7:
Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the difference
between the current period (represented by 2009-2013 data) and the
baseline visibility data (represented by 2000-2004 data) \34\ in
addition to the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) projection.\35\
The PRP was developed by the WRAP as the projected visibility
improvement for 2018, and reflects growth plus all controls ``on the
books'' as of a certain date.\36\ Table 8: Visibility Rolling 5-Year
Averages in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the rolling 5-year average
visibility from 2000-2013 as well as the change from the first 5-year
rolling average period (2000-2004) to the last 5-year rolling average
period (2009-2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-31-F-32.
    \35\ 77 FR at 74361-62.
    \36\ PRPa predicts improvement as of March 2007, while PRPb
predicts improvement as of March 2009.

                                                  Table 7--Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2018
                                                                           Baseline     Progress     Current     Difference   Difference    preliminary
               Class I area                        IMPROVE  site            period       period       period    (progress--   (current--    reasonable
                                                                           2000-04      2005-09      2009-13     baseline)    baseline)      progress
                                                                                PRP18a/PRP18b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Deciview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.....................  CANY1.......................         11.2         11.0         10.8         -0.2         -0.4       10.9/10.7
Bryce Canyon National Park...............  BRCA1.......................         11.6         11.9         10.6          0.3         -1.0       11.2/11.1
Canyonlands National Park................  CANY1.......................         11.2         11.0         10.8         -0.2         -0.4       10.9/10.7
Capitol Reef National Park...............  CAPI1.......................         10.9         11.3         10.2          0.4         -0.7       10.5/10.4
Zion National Park.......................  ZICA1.......................         12.5         12.3         10.8         -0.2         -1.7         \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.....................  CANY1.......................          3.7          2.8          3.1         -0.9         -0.6             3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park...............  BRCA1.......................          2.8          2.1          1.8         -0.7         -1.0             2.6
Canyonlands National Park................  CANY1.......................          3.7          2.8          3.1         -0.9         -0.6             3.5
Capitol Reef National Park...............  CAPI1.......................          4.1          2.7          2.6         -1.4         -1.5             3.9
Zion National Park.......................  ZICA1.......................          5.0          4.3          4.3         -0.7         -0.7         \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are no PRPs established for the ZICA1 monitor. The PRP18a was originally established for the original ZION1 IMPROVE monitor, which was
  discontinued on July 29, 2004.

                                                               Table 8--Visibility Rolling 5-Year Averages in Utah's Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Change  from
                 Class I area                             IMPROVE  site               2000-04         2005-09         2006-10         2007-11         2008-12         2009-13        baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                20% Worst Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..........................  CANY1...........................            11.2            11.0            11.0            10.9            11.0            10.8            -0.4
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  BRCA1...........................            11.6            11.9            11.4            11.4            11.0            10.6            -1.0
Canyonlands National Park.....................  CANY1...........................            11.2            11.0            11.0            10.9            11.0            10.8            -0.4
Capitol Reef National Park....................  CAPI1...........................            10.9            11.3            10.8            10.4            10.5            10.2            -0.7
Zion National Park............................  ZICA1...........................            12.5            12.3            12.5            12.2            11.5            10.8            -1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                20% Best Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..........................  CANY1...........................             3.7             2.8             2.9             2.9             2.9             3.1            -0.6
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  BRCA1...........................             2.8             2.1             2.0             2.0             1.8             1.8            -1.0
Canyonlands National Park.....................  CANY1...........................             3.7             2.8             2.9             2.9             2.9             3.1            -0.6
Capitol Reef National Park....................  CAPI1...........................             4.1             2.7             2.6             2.7             2.5             2.6            -1.5
Zion National Park............................  ZICA1...........................             5.0             4.3             4.5             4.4             4.2             4.2            -0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 7, all the IMPROVE monitoring sites within the
State show improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days. In addition, all
of Utah's Class I areas met the PRP18a on both the 20 percent worst and
20 percent best visibility days over the current (2009-2013) period
(Table 7). Furthermore, deciview improvement was consistent over the
2000-2013 time period, using 5-year rolling averages (Table 8).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Refer to the Utah Progress Report for pollutant
contributions at each Class I area and 5-year rolling averages. Utah
Progress Report, pages F-39-F-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, Utah demonstrates that particulate organic
matter was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 20
percent worst days with the largest difference between the 5-year
average baseline and progress periods at the Bryce Canyon National Park
(BRCA1) site.\38\ According to the State, the difference between the 5-
year average baseline and progress periods at the BRCA1 site was
influenced by large wildfire events in July and August of 2009.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-34, F-37.
    \39\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-10, F-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries of
monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule.
4. Emissions Tracking Analysis
    Utah's Progress Report must include an analysis tracking the change
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D).
    In its Progress Report, Utah presents data from a 2008 emissions
inventory, which leverages inventory development work performed by the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for the West-wide Jumpstart Air
Quality

Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) \40\ and the Deterministic & Empirical
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3)
modeling projects, termed WestJump2008 and compares it to the baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\41\ The pollutants inventoried
include the following source classifications: SO2,
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass from both
anthropogenic and natural sources (Table 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ WRAP Regional Technical Center and West Jump AQMS, https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx (last visited March 19, 2020).
Additional information on the WestJump study available in the docket
for this action, ``WestJump Fact Sheet.''
    \41\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-46, F-48.

                                                           Table 9--Emissions Progress in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2018 preliminary
   Pollutant (anthropogenic,  natural,  and total          2002 emissions           2008 emissions        Difference  (percent     reasonable progress
                      sources)                               (Plan02d)              (WestJump2008)              change)                  (PRP18a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                tons/year
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   51,665                   31,410            -20,256 (-39)                   42,096
    Natural.........................................                    2,418                       92             -2,326 (-96)                    2,418
        Total.......................................                   54,083                   31,190            -22,892 (-42)                   44,513
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
    Anthropogenic...................................                  218,499                  194,913            -23,586 (-11)                  150,593
    Natural.........................................                   21,470                    6,793            -14,676 (-68)                   21,470
        Total.......................................                  239,969                  193,322            -38,262 (-19)                  172,063
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   28,107                   39,295              11,188 (40)                   29,947
    Natural.........................................                    1,893                      449             -1,444 (-76)                    1,893
        Total.......................................                   29,999                   39,744               9,745 (32)                   31,840
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds:
    Anthropogenic...................................                  166,550                  228,985              62,434 (37)                  213,767
    Natural.........................................                  660,965                  238,518           -422,447 (-64)                  660,966
        Total.......................................                  827,515                  396,449           -431,066 (-52)                  874,732
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Organic Aerosol:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    3,220                    6,379               3,159 (98)                    3,064
    Natural.........................................                   26,187                    1,167            -25,020 (-96)                   26,188
        Total.......................................                   29,407                    7,547            -21,860 (-74)                   29,252
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elemental Carbon:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    3,364                    3,889                 524 (16)                    1,327
    Natural.........................................                    5,405                      209             -5,196 (-96)                    5,405
        Total.......................................                    8,769                    4,098             -4,671 (-53)                    6,732
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Soil:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    5,585                   17,297            11,712 (>100)                    7,953
    Natural.........................................                    9,292                   11,239               1,947 (21)                    9,292
        Total.......................................                   14,877                   28,536              13,659 (92)                   17,245
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse Mass:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   23,676                  117,232            93,556 (>100)                   36,357
    Natural.........................................                   73,824                   97,513              23,689 (32)                   73,824
        Total.......................................                   97,500                  214,745           117,245 (>100)                  110,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, Utah's emissions that affect visibility were reduced in
all sectors for all pollutants (total) except for ammonia and coarse
and fine particulate matter categories. Similar to other Western
states,\42\ Utah cites large variability in changes in windblown dust
observed for contiguous Western states, which was likely due in large
part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology rather than changes
in actual emissions.\43\ The largest decrease in point source
inventories was in SO2 emissions which can be attributed to
the implementation of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program in
December 2003.\44\ The largest increase in point source inventories was
in NOX emissions going from 84,218 tons per year in 2002 to
87,623 tons per year in 2008.\45\ According to the State, the
differences in NOX emissions inventories result from normal
fluctuations in plant operations and do not indicate a trend of
increasing emissions. Indeed, a triennial inventory for 2011 shows
point source NOX emissions of 69,913 tons per year which is
17 percent lower than recorded in the base year inventory.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 84 FR 32682, 32687 (July 9, 2019), 85 FR 21341 (April 17,
2020).
    \43\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
    \44\ Utah Progress Report, page F-50.
    \45\ Utah Progress Report, page F-51.
    \46\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the State.

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E).
    In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State. On the
20% worst days over the 5-year period from 2005-2009, particulate
organic matter and ammonium sulfate were the two highest contributors
to haze in Class I areas in Utah. According to the State, the primary
sources of anthropogenic particulate organic matter in Utah include
prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle
refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and
various commercial and industrial sources. The State asserts that
increases in anthropogenic primary organic aerosols may be due to
changes in methodology between 2002 and 2008 and do not necessarily
reflect an actual change in emissions. According to the State, the
primary anthropogenic sources of SO2 include coal-burning
power plants and other industrial sources, with stationary point
sources accounting for approximately 90 percent of SO2
emissions in Utah. The State asserts that SO2 emissions
declined by 42 percent between 2002 and 2008. Because anthropogenic
emissions within Utah have decreased overall, Utah concludes that
anthropogenic SO2 emissions or other anthropogenic emissions
have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or
reducing visibility.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Utah Progress Report, page F-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not cited in Utah's Progress Report, at the time of the
analysis done by the State for the Progress Report (March 2015), not
all BART alternative controls had been realized because compliance
dates had not yet occurred for Carbon Units 1 and 2 (Table 2). Thus,
the impacts of the emissions reductions from BART alternative controls
had not been fully realized and are therefore not evident or accounted
for in the State's Progress Report. These additional anthropogenic
emissions reductions have further improved visibility in Utah's Class I
areas.
    The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) and proposes to agree
with Utah that there have been no significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
    Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to
enable the State, or other states with mandatory Class I areas affected
by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable
progress goals. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F).
    In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional
haze SIP are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with Class
I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established
reasonable progress goals. In particular, Utah compared visibility
conditions and emissions reductions to the WRAP PRP projections.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-59-F-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, states adopting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309 are deemed to have met the reasonable progress
requirements for the Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau. 40
CFR 51.309(a). Since all the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado
Plateau, the State met all reasonable progress requirements for the
Class I areas in Utah. Additionally, Utah previously determined, and
the EPA agreed, that emissions from the State do not significantly
impact or will not significantly impact other states' Class I areas.
Thus, Utah was not required to establish reasonable progress goals.\49\
Accordingly, for the purpose of evaluating this section of the progress
report requirements, we propose to assess progress toward the PRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 77 FR at 74367-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah asserts that visibility continues to improve at the State's
Class I areas from 2000 through 2013. Indeed, key visibility metrics
described previously, show: (1) A decrease in total SO2 and
NOX emissions, which are associated with anthropogenic
sources; (2) improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all IMPROVE
monitoring sites; (3) achievement of the PRP18a at all of Utah's Class
I areas on both the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility
days over the current (2009-2013) period; \50\ and (4) consistent
deciview improvement over the 2000-2013 time period, using 5-year
rolling averages. Thus, Utah is confident that the current
implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to make
progress towards visibility goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ PRP18b modeling results show additional projected
visibility improvement using all known and expected controls as of
March 2009. All of Utah's Class I areas achieve PRP18b except for
Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park which, at 10.8
deciviews during the current period (2009-2013), are above the
PRP18b of 10.7 deciviews. See supra Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) and proposes to agree
with the State's determination that implementation plan elements are
sufficient to enable the State to make reasonable progress towards the
WRAP's PRPs.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    Utah's Progress Report must include a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G).
    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Utah relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE network, which is the primary monitoring
network for regional haze nationwide.
    In its Progress Report, Utah summarizes the existing monitoring
network, which includes four IMPROVE monitors, used to monitor
visibility at the five Class I areas in the State. The State relies
solely on the IMPROVE monitoring network to track long-term visibility
improvement and degradation and will continue to rely on the IMPROVE
monitoring network, without modifications to the existing network, for
complying with the regional haze monitoring requirements.
    The EPA proposes to find that Utah adequately addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because the State reviewed
its visibility monitoring strategy and determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) require states to
determine the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet
existing reasonable progress goals and take one of the following
actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive

revision to the state's existing regional haze implementation plan is
needed at this time;
    (2) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the state must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the state. The state must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies;
    (3) Where the state determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the state shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator; or
    (4) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the state, then the state shall revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    According to Utah, the IMPROVE data demonstrate that Utah is on
track to meet the WRAP's PRPs. Thus, Utah's Progress Report provides a
negative declaration to the EPA that no further substantive revisions
to the regional haze SIP are needed to improve visibility in Class I
areas beyond those controls already in place and scheduled to be in
place at the time Utah prepared the Progress Report.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Utah Progress Report, page F-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because key visibility metrics described
previously show improvement in visibility conditions between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20
percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all
IMPROVE monitoring sites and consistent deciview improvement is shown
over the 2000-2013 time period. Additionally, further visibility
improvement has likely resulted from the 2015 shutdown of Carbon 1 and
2, which was required after Utah's Progress Report was finalized. The
EPA also expects further visibility improvement to result from
subsequent regional haze actions.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016, Regional Haze
Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-12075 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31935-31937]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14157]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86211; File No. SR-C2-2019-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Update Its Rules Related to Complex Orders and Trading Halts

June 27, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2019, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
update its rules related to complex orders and trading halts. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change updates the Exchange's trading halt
procedures as they relate to complex orders. The Exchange recently
adopted a rule change (Rule 6.11) to eliminate the distinction between
how the opening auction process applies to a User's simple orders
following a Regulatory Halt and a non-Regulatory Halt.\5\ This change
will be implemented on June 17, 2019 and provides that the opening
auction process following any trading halt will apply in the same
manner (the manner in which Regulatory Halts functioned previously):
The System will queue a User's orders and quotes resting on the book at
the time of the trading halt for participation in the opening auction
process following the trading halt, unless the User entered
instructions to cancels its resting orders and quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 85931 (May 23, 2019), 84 FR
25086 (May 30, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amend Rule 6.11) (SR-C2-2019-
011). The changes in SR-C2-2019-011 are currently effective but not
yet operative; however, the proposed rule text in this rule filing
assume operativeness of those effective changes. The Exchange notes
that the distinction between the two trading halts was made
throughout its rules in connection with Regulatory Halts under the
Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the
``Plan''). During a Regulatory Halt an underlying security has
halted trading across the industry, and during a non-Regulatory Halt
the primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the
underlying security continues to trade on other equities platforms.
However, the Exchange determined that there would be a Queuing
Period following a non-Regulatory Halt, like that of a Regulatory
Halt, in order eliminate potential investor confusion regarding how
the System will handle orders and quotes in the event of any trading
halt. This is consistent with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to update the Complex Order Book
(``COB'') re-opening process following a trading halt under Rule 6.13
to align with the proposed changes to the opening auction process
following a halt for a User's simple orders. Currently, Rule 6.13(k)(1)
provides that if a trading halt exists for the underlying security or a
component of a complex strategy, trading in the complex strategy is
suspended. The System queues a Trading Permit Holder's open orders
during a Regulatory Halt, unless the Trading Permit Holder entered
instructions to cancel its open complex orders upon a Regulatory Halt,
for participation in the re-opening of the COB. A Trading Permit
Holder's complex orders are cancelled unless the Trading Permit Holder
instructed the Exchange not to cancel its orders. The System cancels a
Trading Permit Holder's open complex orders upon a halt that is not a
Regulatory Halt. The Exchange now proposes to update this process to
mirror that of the process for simple orders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.13(k)(1) by replacing references to
``Regulatory Halts'' with ``halts'', as well as removing language which
states that a Trading Permit Holder's complex orders will be cancelled
unless the Trading Permit Holder instructed the Exchange not to cancel
its orders, and that the System cancels a Trading Permit Holder's open
complex orders upon a halt that is not a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange
also believes that in addition to harmonizing the complex order halt
process with that of the simple order process, removing language that
states that a Trading Permit Holder's complex orders are cancelled
unless the Trading Permit Holder instructed the Exchange not to cancel
its orders, serves to make its rules clearer and easier to understand.
Currently, this language appears to be in conflict with the Rule
language that states (as proposed) that the System will queue a User's
open complex orders during a Regulatory Halt, unless the User entered
instructions to cancel its open complex orders.
    In addition to this, the Exchange proposes to make the same updates
to Rule 6.32, which provides for trading halts generally, thereby
aligning this rule with the trading halt process to be implemented on
June 17, 2019. The Exchange also proposes non-substantive rule changes.
It proposes to amend an inaccurate cross reference in Rule 6.13(c)(1)
(which currently references Rule 6.11(a) (Definitions)) to reference
Rule 6.11, thus accurately encompassing the times and manner set forth
in the opening process as stated in Rule 6.13(c)(1). The Exchange adds
proposed language that refers specifically to a User's open complex
orders, as opposed to open orders, which provides additional clarity as
to the type of orders covered by this Rule. The Exchange also makes
reference changes from ``Trading Permit Holder'' to ``User'', as this
is consistent with the terminology used throughout Rule 6.13.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed change will provide Users
with the ability to decide how their resting complex orders a should be
handled in the event of a non-Regulatory Halt, as they are currently
able to do in the event of a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange also
believes elimination of this distinction will

eliminate potential investor confusion regarding how the System will
handle complex orders in the event of a trading halt, as well as
potential investor confusion regarding how the System will handle
complex orders as compared to simple orders upon implementation of the
changes to the trading halt process for simple orders on June 17, 2019.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to harmonize the process for a User's
complex orders during all types of trading halts will protect investors
by eliminating potential confusion regarding how the System will handle
their complex orders during a non-Regulatory Halt (as they are
currently handled during a Regulatory Halt). The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will serve to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by harmonizing its various rules regarding trading halts,
thereby protecting investors by providing them with consistent rules.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed change eliminates
conflicting language regarding a User's order instructions during
halts, thereby protecting investors by providing rules that are clear
and easy to understand. In addition to this, the proposed non-
substantive changes will benefit investors by providing additional
clarity to the Rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All
Users will have the same flexibility regarding how the System will
handle their complex orders during non-Regulatory Halts, which is the
same flexibility currently available to Users during Regulatory Halts.
If a User wants its complex orders to be handled during a non-
Regulatory Halt in the manner they are today, that User may instruct
the Exchange to do so (as they currently may do during a Regulatory
Halt). The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
intended as a competitive change, but rather to provide Users with
flexibility with respect to the handling of their complex orders during
a non-Regulatory Halt, to provide consistent trading halt procedures
under the Exchange's rules, as well as to provide clarity to investors
by eliminating conflicting language. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed non-substantive changes do not impact trading, and thus have
no competitive impact; they merely provide additional clarity to the
Rules.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to implement this
proposed rule change simultaneously with the rule change to eliminate
the trading halt distinctions following the opening auction process for
a User's simple orders, which the Exchange intends to implement on June
17, 2019. Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2019-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-016. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-016 and should be submitted on
or before July 24, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14157 Filed 7-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P