	                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

	             DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

	                      OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

	                                WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 21, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-16935

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

Application of Kalitta Air, L.L.C., filed January 20, 2004

Relief requested:  Emergency exemption from the provisions of Department
Order 86-2-23, which, pursuant to Executive Order 12543, prohibits
transactions involving air transportation to and from Libya.  Kalitta
Air sought this exemption to permit it to operate one round-trip flight
between Washington, D.C., and Tripoli, Libya, during the period January
19-20, 2004, under a contract with the Department of State.

Kalitta Air accompanied its application with a copy of a January 13,
2004, license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),
Department of the Treasury, granting the requisite Treasury
authorization for the proposed operation.  Kalitta Air also attached a
copy of a January 16, 2004, letter from the Assistant Secretary of State
for Nonproliferation, stating that “The Department of State requires
the services of Kalitta Air in furtherance of national security
objectives.  The use of Kalitta Air will help support the Libyan
commitment to eliminate its WMD program ….”

Based on the advice of the Department of State, and the license issued
by OFAC, we found that the exemption from the provisions of Order
86-2-23 sought by Kalitta Air was consistent with the public interest,
and we orally granted the carrier the requested relief on January 16,
2004.  We confirm that action here.

Applicant rep:   Mark W. Atwood<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  George
Wellington<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (See below).

The action above was effective when taken:  January 16, 2004, through
January 20, 2004

Action taken by:	SUSAN MCDERMOTT

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation

			   and International Affairs

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Remarks:  We found, in the circumstances presented and based on the
information before us, that the requested limited exemption from Order
86-2-23, subject to the conditions we were imposing, was consistent with
the public interest.

2

Conditions:  In orally granting this emergency exemption, we reminded
Kalitta Air that this authority was not alone sufficient to allow it to
conduct the operation at issue here.  Kalitta Air was also subject to
all other applicable U.S. Government requirements, including the
requirement to secure all needed clearances from any other concerned
U.S. Government agencies.  In particular, we required that, before
conducting the authorized operation, Kalitta Air must:

Hold the requisite license issued by OFAC for this operation;

Hold a valid contract with the Department of State for this operation;

Hold requisite operations specifications for this operation from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and

Hold all requisite clearances for this operation from the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).

We confirm these conditions here.

________________________________________________________________________
___________________

To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

  This application confirmed Kalitta Air’s oral request of January 16,
2004, for the authority at issue here.

  51 Fed. Reg. 875, January 9, 1986.  See also 69 Fed. Reg. 847, January
5, 2004.

 We received confirmation from an OFAC licensing official that the
license OFAC had issued would cover this proposed transportation.

  Copies of these documents are attached to Kalitta Air’s application
in this Docket.


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41357-41359]
[DOCID:fr17au09-9]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0521; FRL-8946-1]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan; Pinal County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Pinal County
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from construction,
earthmoving, and related activities, and commercial and residential
unpaved parking lots. We are approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0521, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4111<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by Pinal County and submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Rule                Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinal County.........................      2-8-302  Performance Standards--             01/07/09        06/12/09
                                                     Hayden PM10 Non-attainment
                                                     Area.
                                           4-2-020  Fugitive Dust--General......        12/04/02        06/12/09
                                           4-2-030  Fugitive Dust--Definitions..        12/04/02        06/12/09
                                               4-4  PM-10 Non-attainment Area           06/03/09        06/12/09
                                                     Rules; Dustproofing and
                                                     Stabilization for
                                                     Commercial Unpaved Parking,
                                                     Drive and Working Yards.
                                               4-5  PM-10 Non-attainment Area           06/03/09        06/12/09
                                                     Rules; Stabilization for
                                                     Residential Parking and
                                                     Drives.
                                               4-7  Construction Sites in Non-          06/03/09        06/12/09
                                                     Attainment Areas--Fugitive
                                                     Dust.
                                               4-9  Test Methods................        06/03/09        06/12/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2009, EPA found these rule submittals were complete
according to completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. These
criteria must be met before formal EPA review can begin.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of these rules in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. Each of the submitted rules are discussed below.
    Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 are sections of Pinal County Code Chapter
4, Article 2--Fugitive Dust providing a general statement of article
applicability within Section 020 and a set of definitions for the
article within Section 030.
    Rule 2-8-302 is a rule designed to limit the emissions of fugitive
dust or particulate matter from construction, roadway building, use and
maintenance, and bulk material handling, storage, and transport by
subjecting these activities to a twenty percent opacity restriction.
    Rule 4-4 is a rule designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust
or particulate matter from commercially operated unpaved parking lots,
drive ways, and working yards. Rule 4-4 provisions include a 20%
opacity and 0% visible emissions property line standard, silt content
and silt loading stabilization standards and requirements for clean-up
of material track-out onto paved public roads. The rule also includes
requirements for recordkeeping of dust stabilization efforts.
    Rule 4-5 is a rule designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust
or particulate matter from residential unpaved parking lots and drive
ways. Rule 4-5 provisions include surface stabilization requirements
and control measures and requirements for clean-up of material track-
out onto paved public roads.
    Rule 4-7 is a rule designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust
or particulate matter from development activity related to earthmoving
and construction sites such as bulk material hauling, unpaved parking
lots, vehicle track-out, and disturbed soil in open areas. Rule 4-7
provisions include a twenty percent opacity and zero percent visible
emissions property line standard, requirements to implement Best
Available Control Measures (BACM) for material track-out onto paved
public roads, bulk material handling and movement, unpaved roadways and
unpaved parking areas on a site. The rule also includes provisions for
a dust control permit program, dust control plan requirements, and
related recordkeeping requirements.
    Rule 4-9 contains the test methods for determining compliance with
the opacity and soil stabilization requirements of Rules 4-7, 4-4, and
4-5.
    Rules 4-7, 4-4, and 4-5 apply to the Apache Junction portion of
Pinal County within the Phoenix PM Nonattainment Area (NAA), referred
to in the rule as T1N R8E (Township 1 North, Range 8 East). The rules
do not apply to the remaining portion of Pinal County. These rules are
part of the Pinal County contribution to the Phoenix serious area PM-10
attainment plan control strategy.
    Rule 2-8-302 applies to the Hayden planning area PM-10 non-
attainment area portion of Pinal County defined in 40 CFR 81.303 (See
also 72 FR 14422, March 28, 2007). It is neither applicable to the
Apache Junction serious PM-10 non-attainment area, nor the remainder of
Pinal County.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). As mentioned earlier, Pinal County regulates
two PM nonattainment areas: The Hayden Area, classified as moderate;
and, the Apache Junction area, classified as serious (see 40 CFR part
81). Consequently, Rule 2-8-302 must implement RACM, while Rules 4-7,
4-4, and 4-5 must implement BACM.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    5. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
    6. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    7. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, and SIP relaxations.
    On August 1, 2007, EPA gave a limited approval and limited
disapproval to rules amending the SIP for Pinal County (see 72 Federal
Register (FR) 41896). For further discussion, please see our October
17, 2006 proposal of this action at 71 FR 60934. In this rulemaking, we
identified the deficiencies listed below.
    (1) As written, Rule 4-2-020, Section B effectively exempts
agricultural activities from the fugitive dust rules without
justification.
    (2) Rule 4-2-030, Definition 3, defines ``reasonable precaution''
in highly general terms. The term ``reasonable precaution'' is then
used in every section of Rule 4-2-040, to define what actions must be
taken to mitigate fugitive dust emissions from relevant activities.
This general requirement is not sufficiently clear or enforceable.
    (3) Rule 4-2-050 does not contain recordkeeping provisions. The
absence of recordkeeping provisions makes the all of the submitted
rules difficult to enforce.
    Our final action on August 1, 2007 started sanctions clocks as
required by Section 179 of the CAA. The first sanctions clock expired
on March 1, 2009 and the offset sanctions have been in effect.
    Pinal County's submittal of 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 is intended to
address and

correct the exemption of agricultural activities from fugitive dust
rules. In these submittals, the exemption for agricultural activities
at subsection 4-2-020.B, along with the definition of ``normal farm
cultural practice'' at subsection 4-2-030.2, were deleted; thus,
correcting this deficiency. After the 12/02/02 adoption of this
amendment, the Pinal County Governing Board amended its list of SIP
measures (Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 105--SIP List) on 01/07/09 to
reflect its 12/02/02 action and has submitted this list to EPA.
    Pinal County's submittal of Rules 2-8-302, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, and 4-9
is intended to address and correct the Rule 4-2-030 ``reasonable
precautions'' and Rule 4-2-050 recordkeeping deficiencies in our
limited disapproval.
    Should EPA complete a final approval action on the submitted rules,
we will find that Pinal County has corrected the deficiencies described
above. Consequently, sanctions will be terminated and our Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) obligation will be removed.
    Today, we are also publishing an interim final determination with
this proposal that will stay sanctions during the public comment period
and while we review any public comments we may receive.
    The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. Because
correcting the 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 deficiencies only involved removing
the agricultural activities exemption, we have not provided a TSD
discussing this amendment to Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD for Rule 4-7 describes additional rule revisions that do
not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time
Pinal County modifies Rule 4-7 and 4-9. Rule 4-9 contains an editorial
error that should be corrected as soon as practicable.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP and remove all sanctions and FIP obligations associated
with our August 1, 2007 limited disapproval.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 31, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-19651 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P