[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83868-83877]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0589; FRL-10017-39-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review
Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's
(ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions are primarily intended to make corrections to the ADEQ's SIP-
approved rules for the issuance of New Source Review (NSR) permits for
stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This proposed
action will update the ADEQ's NSR rules in the SIP and correct the
remaining deficiencies in the ADEQ's NSR program that we identified in
final EPA rulemaking actions in 2015 and 2016. Additionally, we are
proposing a finding that the ADEQ's SIP-approved NSR permitting program
meets requirements for visibility protection for major NSR sources
under the Act and are proposing to remove Federal Implementation Plans
(FIPs) related to these requirements. We are seeking comment on our
proposed action and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0589 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittals
    A. What did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of the rules in the Arizona SIP?
    C. What is the purpose of the submittals?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submittals?
    B. Do the submittals meet the evaluation criteria for NSR
programs?
    C. Evaluation of Rules Requested To Be Removed From the SIP
    D. Approval of Program for Visibility Protection in Class I
Areas
    E. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria under Sections
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 110(l), and 193 of the Clean Air Act?
    F. Conclusion
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (iii) The initials ARS mean or refer to the Arizona Revised
Statutes.
    (iv) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
    (v) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.
    (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vii) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
    (viii) The initials MMBtu/hr mean or refer to million British
thermal units per hour.
    (ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (x) The initials NESHAP mean or refer to National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
    (xi) The initials NNSR mean or refer to Nonattainment New Source
Review.
    (xii) The initals NO2 mean or refer to nitrogen dioxide.
    (xiii) The initials NOX mean or refer to oxides of nitrogen.
    (xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer to New Source Performance
Statndards.
    (xv) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (xvi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
    (xvii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xviii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (xix) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    (xx) The words State or Arizona mean the State of Arizona, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
    (xxi) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support
document for this action, unless the context indicates otherwise.

I. The State's Submittals

A. What did the State submit?

    The ADEQ is the governor's designee for submitting official
revisions of the Arizona SIP to the EPA. This proposal evaluates three
SIP revisions submitted by the ADEQ on March 29, 2019,\1\ January 14,
2020, and July 22, 2020.\2\

The submittals include several rules and demonstrations related to the
ADEQ's NSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This submittal was transmitted with a cover letter dated
March 20, 2019 from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality
Division, ADEQ to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
    \2\ This submittal was made via the EPA's eSIP submission
system--State Plan electronic Collaboration System (SPeCS) for
SIPs--on July 22, 2020. A copy of the submission form is available
in the docket for this action. Due to an apparent typographical
error, the cover letter for the submittal was erroneously dated as
July 21, 2017 rather than July 21, 2020. Additionally, an Excel
spreadsheet that is part of the submittal but that was not submitted
through the SPeCS was submitted to the EPA via email on July 21,
2020. The spreadsheet and transmittal email are also included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the rules addressed by this proposal
with the dates on which they became effective under State law. The
ADEQ's January 14, 2020 submittal requested that specific paragraphs
from certain revised rules be added to the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ's July
22, 2020 submittal clarifies that the ADEQ requests that the entirety
of each revised rule (with one exception) be included in the SIP,
rather than only the selected paragraphs identified in the earlier
submittal. As such, Table 1 of this preamble reflects the updated rule
submission request in the July 22, 2020 submittal. The submitted rules
are from the Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18--Environmental
Quality, Chapter 2--Department of Environmental Quality--Air Pollution
Control, Articles 1, 3, and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that this rule contains a new provision stating that
a particular revised subsection, R18-2-101(131)(f), will take effect
on the effective date of the EPA Administrator's action approving it
as part of the Arizona SIP. Therefore, the revised version of R18-2-
101(131)(f) would become effective on the effective date of our
approval of the current submittal of R18-2-101.

                        Table 1--Submitted Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
               Rule                          Title            effective
                                                                 date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R18-2-101, except (20)...........  Definitions.............     \3\ 2/1/
                                                                    2020
R18-2-301........................  Definitions.............     2/1/2020
R18-2-302........................  Applicability;              3/21/2017
                                    Registration; Classes
                                    of Permits.
R18-2-302.01.....................  Source Registration          2/1/2020
                                    Requirements.
R18-2-304........................  Permit Application           2/1/2020
                                    Processing Procedures.
R18-2-306........................  Permit Contents.........    3/21/2017
R18-2-306.01.....................  Permits Containing          3/21/2017
                                    Voluntarily Accepted
                                    Emission Limitations
                                    and Standards.
R18-2-317........................  Facility Changes Allowed     8/7/2012
                                    Without Permit
                                    Revisions--Class I.
R18-2-317.01.....................  Facility Changes that        8/7/2012
                                    Require a Permit
                                    Revision--Class II.
R18-2-317.02.....................  Procedures for Certain       8/7/2012
                                    Changes that Do Not
                                    Require a Permit
                                    Revision--Class II.
R18-2-319........................  Minor Permit Revisions..    3/21/2017
R18-2-320........................  Significant Permit          3/21/2017
                                    Revisions.
R18-2-334........................  Minor New Source Review.     2/1/2020
R18-2-406........................  Permit Requirements for      2/1/2020
                                    Sources Located in
                                    Attainment and
                                    Unclassifiable Areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2019 and July 14, 2020, the March 29, 2019 and
January 14, 2020 submittals, respectively, were determined complete by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On November 17,
2020, the EPA determined that the July 22, 2020 submittal met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    The proposed SIP revisions will apply to all areas and sources in
Arizona for which the ADEQ has permitting jurisdiction. The ADEQ has
permitting jurisdiction for the following stationary source categories
in all areas of Arizona: Smelting of metal ores, coal-fired electric
generating stations, petroleum refineries, Portland cement plants, and
portable sources. The ADEQ also has permitting jurisdiction for major
and minor sources in the following counties: Apache, Cochise, Coconino,
Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz, Yavapai,
and Yuma. Finally, ADEQ has permitting jurisdiction over major sources
in Pinal County (currently delegated to Pinal County) and any source in
Maricopa, Pima, or Pinal County for which the ADEQ asserts
jurisdiction.

B. Are there other versions of the rules in the Arizona SIP?

    Table 2 lists the existing rules in the Arizona SIP that would be
superseded or removed from the Arizona SIP as part of our proposed
action. If the EPA were to take final action as proposed herein, these
rules generally would be replaced in the SIP by the submitted set of
rules listed in Table 1 of this document.

                                   Table 2--Rules To Be Superseded or Removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Rule                           Title            EPA approval date     Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R18-2-101...........................  Definitions...........  May 4, 2018..........  83 FR 19631
R18-2-301...........................  Definitions...........  November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
R18-2-302...........................  Applicability;          November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Registration; Classes
                                       of Permits.
R18-2-302.01........................  Source Registration     November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Requirements.
R18-2-304...........................  Permit Application      November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Processing Procedures.
R18-2-306...........................  Permit Contents.......  November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
R18-2-306.01........................  Permits Containing      November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Voluntarily Accepted
                                       Emission Limitations
                                       and Standards.
R18-2-319...........................  Minor Permit Revisions  November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
R18-2-320...........................  Significant Permit      November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Revisions.
R18-2-334...........................  Minor New Source        November 2, 2015.....  80 FR 67319
                                       Review.
R18-2-406...........................  Permit Requirements     May 4, 2018..........  83 FR 19631
                                       for Sources Located
                                       in Attainment and
                                       Unclassifiable Areas.

R9-3-217, paragraph A...............  Attainment Areas;       April 23, 1982.......  47 FR 17483
                                       Classification and
                                       Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submittals?

    On March 29, 2019, the ADEQ submitted a SIP submittal intended to
resolve a conditional approval relating to the permitting of fine
particular matter (PM2.5) precursors in PM2.5
nonattainment areas. The ADEQ supplemented the submittal on January 14,
2020 (the March 29, 2019 submittal and January 14, 2020 supplement are
collectively referred to hereinafter as the ``Ammonia PM2.5
NSR submittal''). The January 14, 2020 supplement also included other
minor and technical rule revisions to the ADEQ's NSR program. On July
22, 2020, the ADEQ submitted a SIP revision to address outstanding
deficiencies in its NSR program, pertaining primarily to the ADEQ's
minor NSR program, that were identified by the EPA in a final rule
action in 2015 (referred to hereinafter as the ``2020 Minor NSR
submittal''). In the 2020 Minor NSR submittal, the ADEQ also requested
that the EPA remove the visibility FIPs at 40 CFR 52.27 and 52.28 as
applied to major sources subject to the ADEQ's permitting jurisdiction,
as its SIP-approved NSR program requirements also satisfy the CAA
visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307.
    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about the content of these submittals (collectively referred to
hereinafter as the ``2019-20 NSR submittals'').

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submittals?

    The EPA has reviewed the rules and other materials submitted for
SIP approval by the ADEQ that are the subject of this action for
compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section
110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); \4\ the EPA's
regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part
51, subpart I; and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA
section 110(l) and 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable, and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out their
proposed SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l)
require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific
procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent
advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period
of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    With respect to substantive requirements, we have reviewed the
submittals that are the subject of our current action in accordance
with the CAA and applicable regulatory requirements, focusing primarily
on those that apply to minor NSR programs under 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit programs
under part C of title I of the Act, and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit
programs under part D of title I of the Act. The 2019-20 NSR submittals
are primarily intended to correct the remaining deficiencies in the
ADEQ's NSR program that we previously identified in final rule actions,
as discussed below, and therefore we reviewed them both to determine
whether those corrections had been made and to more generally ensure
that the submitted rule revisions comply with the CAA and applicable
regulatory requirements. In addition, we reviewed the ADEQ's NSR
regulations to determine whether they meet the CAA visibility
requirements in 40 CFR 51.307 for sources subject to PSD and NNSR
review.
    As background, on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67319), the EPA published
a final limited approval and limited disapproval of a 2012 SIP revision
submittal to the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP (referred to
hereinafter as the EPA's ``2015 NSR action'').\5\ Our 2015 NSR action
updated the ADEQ's SIP-approved NSR permitting program, but identified
deficiencies that needed to be corrected for the EPA to grant full
approval of the ADEQ's NSR program. Thus, our 2015 NSR action triggered
an obligation for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) to address the deficiencies that were the basis for our limited
disapproval action unless the State of Arizona corrected the
deficiencies, and the EPA approved the related plan revisions, within
two years of that final action. In addition, to avoid sanctions under
section 179 of the Act, the ADEQ had 18 months from December 2, 2015,
the effective date of our 2015 NSR action, to correct those
deficiencies related to part D of title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We also finalized other actions, which included a partial
disapproval related to the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) significant monitoring concentration, and limited
approvals, without corresponding limited disapprovals, related to
section 189(e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40525), the EPA also published a separate
but related final limited disapproval action for the ADEQ's NNSR
program, as the ADEQ's program did not fully address PM2.5
precursors as required by section 189(e) of the Act (referred to
hereinafter as the EPA's ``2016 PM2.5 precursor action'').
This action triggered an obligation for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to
address this deficiency unless the State of Arizona corrected the
deficiency, and the EPA approved the related plan revisions, within two
years of the final action. In addition, to avoid sanctions under
section 179 of the Act, the ADEQ had 18 months from the July 22, 2016
effective date of our 2016 PM2.5 precursor action to correct
the deficiency as it related to part D of title I of the Act.
    On May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19631), the EPA published a final rule
approving revisions to the ADEQ's NSR program, primarily related to the
PSD and NNSR programs (referred to hereinafter as the ``2018 Major NSR
action''). The 2018 Major NSR action corrected a substantial portion of
the deficiencies identified in our 2015 NSR action and our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action. The 2018 Major NSR action also
included a conditional approval of the ADEQ's NNSR program related to
one specific component of the deficiency identified in our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action, discussed in greater detail in
Section II.B.5 of this preamble. We note that concurrent with our
proposed conditional approval action in 2018, we made an interim final
determination that the State of Arizona had satisfied the requirements
of part D of the CAA permitting program for areas under the
jurisdiction of ADEQ with respect to

PM2.5 precursors under section 189(e).\6\ The effect of our
interim final determination was that the imposition of sanctions that
had been triggered was deferred. Following the 2018 Major NSR action,
several outstanding deficiencies in the ADEQ's NSR program remained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 83 FR 1195 (January 10, 2018) and 83 FR 1212 (January
10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submittals that are the subject of this proposed action are
intended to correct the remaining deficiencies identified in our 2015
NSR action and the deficiency that formed the basis for our conditional
approval in our 2018 Major NSR action, so that the ADEQ's NSR program
would be fully approved. In addition, in the 2020 Minor NSR submittal,
the ADEQ requested that we remove the visibility FIPs at 40 CFR 52.27
and 40 CFR 52.28, which would result from our determining that the
ADEQ's NSR regulations meet the CAA visibility requirements in 40 CFR
51.307 for sources subject to PSD and NNSR review under the ADEQ's
permitting jurisdiction. Our analysis focuses on these issues; however,
we also reviewed the submitted rules and rule revisions to ensure that
they otherwise adhere to the relevant CAA requirements.
    For reference, the docket for the present action includes the EPA's
TSDs for the 2015 NSR action and the 2018 Major NSR action, a June 22,
2015 EPA memorandum, and the notice of proposed rulemaking for our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action. The TSD for our 2015 NSR action,
which was prepared in support of the EPA's proposal that preceded our
final 2015 NSR action, contains a detailed discussion of the NSR
program, its requirements, and the deficiencies we identified in the
ADEQ's 2012 NSR SIP submittal. We note that there were several proposed
deficiencies discussed in the 2015 TSD that we subsequently determined,
in our final action, did not serve as bases for our limited
disapproval. The June 22, 2015 EPA memorandum provides the list of
deficiencies from our 2015 NSR action that formed the basis for our
final limited disapproval of the ADEQ's 2012 NSR SIP submittal, many of
which were addressed in our 2018 Major NSR action. Our 2016
PM2.5 precursor action did not include a separate TSD; our
notice of proposed rulemaking from May 2, 2016 (81 FR 26186) provides
our detailed analysis supporting that limited disapproval action.

B. Do the submittals meet the evaluation criteria for NSR programs?

    Our 2015 NSR action, including our proposed action on March 18,
2015 (80 FR 14044), provides a detailed discussion of the approval
criteria for the NSR program and how the ADEQ's NSR rules that we
reviewed in that action generally meet the approval criteria despite
certain deficiencies that required correction in order for the EPA to
fully approve the ADEQ's NSR program. In this action, we are focusing
our review on the revisions that the ADEQ made to correct the remaining
deficiencies we identified in our 2015 NSR action and the deficiency
that formed the basis for our conditional approval in our 2018 Major
NSR action. We also reviewed other revisions the ADEQ made in the 2019-
20 NSR submittals to ensure that the revised language is consistent
with applicable requirements of the Act and the EPA regulations. In
addition, we reviewed the ADEQ's NSR program regulations to determine
whether they satisfied the CAA visibility review requirements in 40 CFR
51.307 for sources subject to PSD or NNSR review under the ADEQ's
permitting jurisdiction.
    We are proposing approval of the 2019-20 NSR submittals because
they would correct the remaining deficiencies in the ADEQ's NSR program
that we identified in our 2015 NSR action and that formed the basis for
our conditional approval in our 2018 Major NSR action, and because they
are otherwise consistent with the requirements for NSR programs and the
Act. Our detailed analysis of the ADEQ's 2019-20 NSR submittals is
provided in the TSD for this action. Below we briefly discuss the
remaining previously identified deficiencies that this action, if
finalized, would correct.
1. Deficiencies Corrected Related to Required Legally Enforceable
Procedures
    The ADEQ has corrected deficiencies related to the required legally
enforceable procedures for minor NSR permitting programs in 40 CFR
51.160. Most of the corrections were rule revisions and are described
below. Additionally, the ADEQ needed to provide a basis for the
exclusion of certain stationary sources from its NSR program. Those
demonstrations are also described further below.
    In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA found that, in some instances, the
ADEQ's 2012 NSR submittal did not ensure that a source would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in neighboring areas outside the ADEQ's
permitting jurisdiction consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). We
find that the ADEQ has corrected this issue by revising the definition
for ``attainment area'' and by revising the ADEQ rules R18-2-302.01,
R18-2-334, and R18-2-406 to use terms that reference the NAAQS instead
of state standards and clearly apply the NAAQS to neighboring areas.
See R18-2-101(19), R18-2-302.01(C), R18-2-334(C)(2) and (F), and R18-2-
406(A)(5). The revisions to R18-2-101(19) and R18-2-406(A)(5) were
approved into the Arizona SIP in our 2018 Major NSR action. The ADEQ
also corrected an issue under 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b) in R18-2-302.01
by adding a reference to ``or maintenance'' of a standard, instead of
just ``attainment of a standard'' at R18-2-302.01(C)(4).
    In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA found that for sources subject to
the ADEQ's registration program at R18-2-302.01, the 2012 NSR submittal
did not demonstrate that the ADEQ's NSR program met the requirement to
ensure that sources subject to NSR review comply with the applicable
portions of the control strategy, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1).
The ADEQ has corrected this issue by revising R18-2-302.01(E)
accordingly.
    As discussed in our 2015 NSR action, the ADEQ's registration
program at R18-2-302.01 did not previously contain enforceable
procedures for the owner or operator to submit the necessary
information for the ADEQ to determine whether a source will violate the
applicable control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 51.160(c). The ADEQ corrected this
issue by revising R18-2-302.01(A)(3) to remove a reference to R18-2-
327(C), a rule not in the SIP, and to instead use the term ``maximum
capacity to emit with elective limits,'' which is a newly defined term
that is used in conjunction with another newly defined term ``maximum
capacity to emit.'' See R18-2-301(12) and (13). The term that was
previously used, ``uncontrolled potential to emit,'' is no longer
defined or used in the ADEQ's NSR program. We find these revisions and
the new definitions for ``maximum capacity to emit'' and ``maximum
capacity to emit with elective limits'' acceptable.
    Previously, the ADEQ's program did not meet the requirement that
the applicant submit information related to the nature and amounts of
emissions, for certain kinds of emissions units, as required by 40 CFR
51.160(c)(1). For Class I and Class II permit applications, R18-2-304
previously allowed sources to avoid providing emissions information for
``insignificant activities,'' as defined in R18-2-101(68). The ADEQ
corrected this issue by revising R18-2-304 to specify that emissions
information from

insignificant activities must be provided to the extent necessary to
determine applicability of the minor and major NSR programs (R18-2-334
and Article 4 of ADEQ's rules, respectively). See R18-2-304(F)(8).
    Previously, for sources subject to the ADEQ's registration program
at R18-2-302.01, the ADEQ's program did not meet the requirement in 40
CFR 51.160(d) that its procedures provide that approval of construction
or modification will not affect the responsibility of the owner or
operator to comply with applicable portions of the control strategy.
The ADEQ corrected this issue by adding this requirement for sources
subject to R18-2-302.01, at R18-2-302.01(I).
    The EPA found in our 2015 NSR action that the ADEQ's registration
program at R18-2-302.01 did not meet the requirement to use appendix W
to 40 CFR part 51 for air quality modeling as required by 40 CFR
51.160(f)(1). The ADEQ corrected this issue by revising R18-302.01(C)
to reference a ``screening model,'' a newly defined term in revised
R18-2-301 that requires the use of appendix W.
    In our 2015 NSR action, we found that the ADEQ's program had
several deficiencies related to 40 CFR 51.160(e) because the 2012 NSR
SIP submittal did not provide an adequate basis for certain sources
that are excluded from the ADEQ's minor NSR permitting program. 40 CFR
51.160(e) requires the ADEQ to provide a basis for the types and sizes
of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations that will be
subject to review under 40 CFR 51.160. That is, 40 CFR 51.160(e) allows
state minor NSR programs to exclude some new minor sources and minor
modifications to the extent they are inconsequential to attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. We are now proposing approval of the ADEQ's
NSR program under 40 CFR 51.160(e). The demonstrations provided by the
ADEQ address: The ADEQ's NSR permitting exemption thresholds, as they
apply in nonattainment areas; the ADEQ's PM2.5 NSR
permitting threshold in attainment and nonattainment areas; the
exemption of certain small fuel burning equipment; and the exemption of
agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations.
    With respect to the minor NSR permitting thresholds, the ADEQ
looked at the 2014 National Emissions Inventory for sources in Arizona
to determine the percentage of emissions and stationary sources covered
by the ADEQ's minor NSR program.\7\ The results show the percentage of
stationary sources and emissions expected to be covered by the ADEQ's
NSR program as compared to the entire state, areas of the state subject
to the ADEQ minor NSR jurisdiction (i.e., all counties except Maricopa,
Pima, and Pinal), and the four counties subject to state minor NSR
jurisdiction that include nonattainment areas (Cochise, Gila, Santa
Cruz, and Yavapai). This updated analysis, the results of which are
included in our TSD, shows that the ADEQ's minor NSR program may cover
a significantly higher percentage of stationary source emissions than
originally determined, including in nonattainment areas.\8\ The ADEQ's
updated analysis follows the same approach that the EPA used in
developing the minor NSR program for Indian country, which we find
acceptable. Additionally, the ADEQ's 2020 Minor NSR submittal contains
a discussion of the types of emission sources that largely contribute
to nonattainment in the nonattainment areas for which the ADEQ has
minor NSR permitting jurisdiction. This discussion shows that minor
sources are not currently significant contributors to the nonattainment
issues in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 2012 NSR SIP submittal used data from only Maricopa
County. The ADEQ is not the permitting authority for stationary
sources in Maricopa County, which has lower permitting thresholds.
The ADEQ explains that Maricopa County is a large urban area that
may have many small sources that can contribute to nonattainment
areas, but the nonattainment areas for which the ADEQ has minor NSR
permitting jurisdiction are significantly different and more rural.
    \8\ The ADEQ's 2012 analysis showed that the ADEQ expected to
cover, approximately, between 35% to 80% of emissions through its
minor and major NSR programs. See our TSD for the 2015 NSR action,
25, Table 5. The updated analysis in Table 3 of the TSD for this
proposed action shows that the ADEQ is expected to cover between 69%
to 100% of emissions through its minor and major NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While PM2.5 emissions data were not available for the
original source distribution analysis in the 2012 NSR SIP submittal,
the updated analysis shows that, based on the minor NSR threshold for
PM2.5, the ADEQ's NSR program is expected to cover a high
percentage of emissions in both attainment and nonattainment areas
(greater than 95% in nonattainment areas). We find that the ADEQ's
minor NSR threshold for PM2.5 provides adequate assurance
that the sources exempted from regulation under the minor NSR program
by the threshold would be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS.
    In our 2015 NSR action, we found that the ADEQ needed to provide an
interpretation of the exemption for small fuel burning equipment, rated
less than one million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), in
state law at Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-426(B), and how
it does, or does not, apply in the context of its major and minor NSR
programs, and, to the extent such equipment is not subject to NSR
review, the ADEQ's basis for determining that equipment exempted under
this provision does not need to be reviewed as part of the ADEQ's minor
NSR program under 40 CFR 51.160(e). The 2020 Minor NSR submittal
explains that only those stationary sources that consist solely of
equipment with a cumulative heat input rate of less than 1 MMBtu/hr are
eligible for the exemption in ARS section 49-426(B). Because the
exemption is only available to those stationary sources that consist
solely of fuel burning equipment with a cumulative rating of 1 MMBtu/
hr, such sources will already be below the ADEQ's permitting exemption
thresholds. Thus, we find this exemption and explanation acceptable.
    The 2020 Minor NSR submittal contains a detailed discussion
describing the ADEQ's reasoning and analysis for the exemption for
agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations in ADEQ rule R18-
2-302. See 2020 Minor NSR submittal, 9-13, 24-25. The analysis is
summarized here. The State of Arizona exempts ``agricultural equipment
used in normal farm operations'' from the general requirement to obtain
a permit. See ARS 49-426(A). The ADEQ implements this exemption in its
permitting program by exempting ``agricultural equipment used in normal
farm operations'' from the requirement to obtain a registration or
permit at R18-2-302(C). The exemption does not apply if the source is a
``major source'' or if ``operation without a permit would result in a
violation of the Act.'' Additionally, agricultural equipment used in
normal farm operations does not include equipment classified as a
source that requires a permit under title V of the Act, or that is
subject to a standard under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63.
    In our 2015 NSR action, we stated that the ADEQ needed to identify
whether ``agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations'' could
potentially be expected to occur at a stationary source subject to
title V of the Act, 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, or major NSR, and, if
so, whether such equipment is subject to NSR review at such sources.
The ADEQ has clarified that the exemption at R18-2-302(C) represents
the ADEQ's interpretation of the agricultural exemption in ARS section
49-426(A)

and stated that the ``rule has been recognized as valid by the Arizona
Attorney General in its opinion supporting the state's title V program
in 1993.'' \9\ The EPA deferred to this opinion in approving ADEQ's
title V program in 1996. The ADEQ also clarified that the ADEQ
interprets its permitting requirements such that its permitting
determinations (including for the registration program) are made on a
source-wide basis. For an exemption to apply, all the pollutant-
emitting activities within the same stationary source must qualify for
the exemption. Therefore, if equipment used in normal farm operations
is located at the same stationary source as non-exempt equipment that
requires a permit, such as at a major source, a title V source, or a
source subject to a standard under 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, then
permit requirements, and potentially NSR, extend to the entire source,
including the equipment used in the farm operations. This also means
that the exemption is potentially available only to minor sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Attorney General's Opinion at 2 (November 15, 1993)
(Appendix D of the 2020 Minor NSR submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the term ``normal farm operations'' is not specifically
defined by statute or rule, the ADEQ finds the State's Agricultural
Best Management Practices (Ag BMP) program for PM10
nonattainment areas provides guidance on the State's interpretation for
the types of activities that constitute normal farm operations, as
described under the Ag BMP statute at ARS section 49-457(P)(1). The
activities include: Tillage, planting, and harvesting; areas of a
commercial farm that are not normally in crop production (i.e.,
fallow); areas of a commercial farm that are normally in crop
production; significant agricultural earthmoving activities; traffic
over unpaved access connections or unpaved roads or feed lanes; animal
waste handling and transporting; arenas, corrals, and pens; and canals.
The ADEQ also interprets the normal farm operations exemption to apply
to crop and feed processing equipment that produces only fugitive
emissions. We consider all the identified activities to be sources of
fugitive emissions.
    The ADEQ's current SIP-approved NSR program already exempts
fugitive emissions in determining whether a stationary source is
subject to minor NSR permitting requirements. See R18-2-302(F). While
this exemption does not apply to stationary sources that belong to
certain source categories, referred to as ``section 302(j) category''
sources, normal farm operations are not section 302(j) category
sources. See R18-2-101(129). This fugitive emissions exemption for
determining minor NSR applicability reflects the same approach that the
EPA took for its minor NSR program developed for Indian country. See 40
CFR 49.151 through 49.161, including the definition for ``minor
source'' and ``modification'' at 40 CFR 49.152. In the ADEQ's
experience, the overwhelming majority of normal farm operations would
be excluded from permitting on this basis, even if the normal farm
operations exemption were not available. Farm emissions tend to consist
almost exclusively of fugitive dust generated by the disturbance of
soils.
    The ADEQ also recognizes that it is possible for equipment used in
normal farm operations to be part of a stationary source that produces
stack emissions greater than the permitting exemption threshold. In
most cases, the ADEQ believes that such a stationary source would not
qualify for the exemption. R18-2-302(C) provides that equipment used in
normal farm operations ``does not include equipment classified as a
source that requires a permit under title V of the Act, or that is
subject to'' an New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). In addition,
permit applicability is determined on a stationary-source-wide basis.
Thus, if a stationary source that engaged in normal farm operations
qualified as a title V source or included equipment subject to an NSPS
or NESHAP, the entire source would require a permit and potentially be
subject to minor NSR if its emissions were above the NSR permitting
exemption thresholds. In the ADEQ's experience, most permitted sources
include one or more pieces of equipment subject to an NSPS. It is
therefore likely that if equipment used in normal farm operations were
collocated with equipment with stack emissions exceeding the permitting
exemption thresholds, at least some of that equipment would be subject
to an NSPS, and the normal farm operations exemption would not apply.
Additionally, a source with equipment subject to a NESHAP or a source
that qualifies as a title V source would not be exempted.
    Finally, the ADEQ stated that under R18-2-302(C), equipment used in
normal farm operations is not exempt if ``operation [of the equipment]
without a permit would result in a violation of the Act,'' which
provides a final safeguard. In the few remaining potential situations
where equipment used in normal farm operations is located at a
stationary source with stack emissions above the permitting exemption
threshold that is not subject to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 or title V,
the ADEQ will invoke this provision to ensure that any such source does
not endanger attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or enforcement of
the control strategy.
    In sum, the ADEQ has demonstrated that its exemption for
agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations is extremely
limited in scope, and the potential sources exempted from permitting
would be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
This determination is based on the ADEQ's interpretation of the narrow
manner in which the exemption applies, the limited types of operations
that are considered to be ``normal farm operations,'' and the ADEQ's
retention of authority to address any potentially exempt sources that
may endanger attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or enforcement of
the control strategy. We agree that the vast majority of these
operations are likely already exempted from the ADEQ's SIP-approved
minor NSR program under the general exemption for excluding fugitive
emissions in permitting applicability determinations. We find the
ADEQ's basis and explanation for the exemption from minor NSR review
for agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations to be
acceptable.
2. Deficiencies Corrected Related to Public Availability of Information
    In our 2015 NSR action, the EPA identified several deficiencies
with the ADEQ's NSR program concerning the requirements related to
public availability of information in 40 CFR 51.161. First, the ADEQ's
program did not ensure that all minor sources subject to NSR review
under the ADEQ's NSR program, as the ADEQ defined it pursuant to 40 CFR
51.160(e), are subject to public notice and comment consistent with 40
CFR 51.161(a). The ADEQ corrected this deficiency by revising R18-2-334
to remove the previous public notice exemption for certain permit
applications. Additionally, the 2020 Minor NSR submittal clarifies that
the use of the term ``construction,'' as defined in R18-2-101(32), in
R18-2-302.01 ensures that modifications to a registered source at or
above the permitting exemption thresholds will be subject to public
notice. Next, the ADEQ's registration program at R18-2-302.01
previously did not contain sufficient enforceable procedures for
sources taking ``elective

limits'' to limit their potential to emit in a manner that allows the
source to avoid the public participation requirements in 40 CFR
51.161(a), while otherwise being subject to the registration program.
The ADEQ corrected this deficiency by adding additional specificity to
how elective limits are set, ensuring that such limits will include the
time period over which the limitations apply, and ensuring sufficient
recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance. See R18-2-302.01(F).
    The ADEQ's NSR program also did not include sufficient public
notice procedures for registrations or the proposed disapproval of an
application consistent with 40 CFR 51.161(a). The ADEQ revised R18-2-
330 to clarify the public notice procedures for registrations and to
require public notice for a proposed disapproval of an application. See
R18-2-330(A). We approved the revisions to R18-2-330 in our 2018 Major
NSR action but did not note in that action that the revisions corrected
this deficiency.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A copy of the SIP-approved R18-2-330 is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in our 2015 NSR action, the EPA identified as a deficiency
that the ADEQ's NSR program did not provide notice to the necessary
parties identified in 40 CFR 51.161(d) for sources required to obtain
registrations under R18-2-302.01. The ADEQ corrected this deficiency by
adding this requirement at R18-2-302.01(B)(4).
3. Deficiencies Corrected Related to Administrative Procedures
    40 CFR 51.163 requires each NSR program to include the
administrative procedures that will be followed in reviewing new and
modified sources, as specified in 40 CFR 51.160(a). In our 2015 NSR
action, we found that the ADEQ's 2012 NSR SIP submittal contained
administrative procedures consistent with 40 CFR 51.163; however, not
all the procedures referenced in the 2012 NSR SIP submittal were
submitted for inclusion into the SIP. The ADEQ corrected this
deficiency by submitting R18-2-317, R18-2-317.01, and R18-2-317.02.
These rules generally identify the types of changes at Class I and II
sources that do or do not require a permit revision and require that
projects triggering minor or major NSR review obtain permit revisions
in advance. We have reviewed these rules for inclusion in the ADEQ's
SIP-approved NSR program and find them acceptable.
4. Resolution of Minor NSR Program Deficiencies
    For the reasons stated above, we propose to find that the 2019-2020
NSR submittals correct all remaining deficiencies in the ADEQ's minor
NSR program that were identified in our 2015 NSR action as the basis
for our limited disapproval.
5. Resolution of PM2.5 NNSR Program Deficiency
    The only outstanding deficiency in the ADEQ's NNSR program
identified in our earlier actions relates to the treatment of ammonia
as a precursor to PM2.5 for the West Central Pinal and
Nogales PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As background, in 2016,
the EPA finalized regulatory requirements for SIPs related to
implementing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (``2012 PM2.5
implementation rule'').\11\ The 2012 PM2.5 implementation
rule included regulatory requirements that states must adopt in
permitting programs in PM2.5 nonattainment areas to address
the requirements for PM2.5 precursors for major stationary
sources under section 189(e) of the Act. For purposes of the NNSR
program, the EPA specified that PM2.5 precursors in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas include NOX, VOC,
SO2, and ammonia. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 81 FR 58010
(August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EPA's 2016 PM2.5 precursor action, we finalized a
narrow, limited disapproval action for deficiencies in the ADEQ's NNSR
program related to PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5
nonattainment areas.\12\ For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, CAA
section 189(e) requires that the control requirements applicable under
plans in effect under part D of the CAA for major stationary sources of
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the EPA determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that
exceed the standards in the area. In our 2016 PM2.5
precursor action, we determined that the ADEQ's 2012 NSR SIP submittal
did not fully satisfy the major NNSR requirements for PM2.5
under section 189(e) of the Act for the Nogales and West Central Pinal
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, based on our finding that the
submittal did not include rules regulating VOCs or ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors under the NNSR program, nor did it include
a demonstration showing that the regulation of VOCs and ammonia was not
necessary under section 189(e).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 81 FR 40525.
    \13\ See id. Our 2016 proposed action contained a detailed
discussion of the ADEQ's PM2.5 NSR program and this
limited disapproval issue. See Proposed Rule, Limited Disapproval of
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; New Source Review; PM 2.5.
81 FR 26185 (May 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our 2018 Major NSR action, we found that the ADEQ's April 28,
2017 SIP revision submittal (``2017 Major NSR submittal''), which
mostly pertained to NSR program updates for major sources, contained
revisions that updated the ADEQ's NNSR program to address all the
deficiencies with that program that were identified in our 2015 NSR
action. We also found that the ADEQ's 2017 Major NSR submittal
addressed the deficiencies we identified in our 2016 PM2.5
precursor action related to PM2.5 precursors in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, with one exception: We found that
the ADEQ's rule revisions did not fully meet the requirements of the
2012 PM2.5 implementation rule as it relates to ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor. Specifically, while the ADEQ's NNSR program
included ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5, at R18-2-
101(124)(a)(iv), we found that the 2017 Major NSR submittal did not
define the threshold at which emissions increases of ammonia are
considered ``significant'' for determining when modifications at
existing major sources of ammonia are major modifications subject to
NNSR, as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(F).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 83 FR 19631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, while our 2018 Major NSR action approved the rule
revisions in the ADEQ's 2017 Major NSR submittal, our action also
included a conditional approval with respect to ammonia as precursor to
PM2.5 emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. A
December 6, 2017 commitment letter from the ADEQ provided adequate
assurance that the remaining NNSR program deficiency related to ammonia
as a PM2.5 precursor in PM2.5 nonattainment areas
would be addressed in a timely manner, consistent with CAA section
110(k)(4). Our 2018 Major NSR action conditionally approved the ADEQ's
NSR program with respect to ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor
based on this commitment. The ADEQ's Ammonia PM2.5 NSR
submittal satisfies the requirements of our conditional approval and
corrects this outstanding deficiency.
    Specifically, the ADEQ's Ammonia PM2.5 NSR submittal
includes a rule revision that sets a rate of 40 tons per year as
``significant'' in reference to the significant emission rate (SER)
used to

determine those projects that constitute a major modification at major
sources of ammonia. See R18-2-101(131)(f). A SER of 40 tpy for ammonia
has been approved by the EPA for several other PM2.5
nonattainment areas,\15\ and the ADEQ set this value in consultation
with EPA Region 9. Our approval of the submitted ammonia SER will
resolve the remaining deficiency that formed the basis for our
conditional approval in our 2018 Major NSR action, and therefore we are
proposing to remove the conditional approval language from 40 CFR
52.119(a), as the condition has been met. We also note that the
sanctions and sanctions clocks triggered by our 2016 PM2.5
precursor action, as discussed in Section II.A of this preamble, would
be permanently terminated on the effective date of our final approval
of the Ammonia PM2.5 NSR submittal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, the EPA has approved an ammonia SER of 40 tpy
for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania (85 FR 36161, June 15, 2020);
Knox County, Tennesse (83 FR 46880, September 17, 2018); Imperial
County, California 84 FR 44545, (August 26, 2019); and Los Angeles--
South Coast Air Basin, CA (83 FR 61551, November 30, 2018).
    \16\ See 83 FR 19631, 19633, 19634 (May 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Resolution of PSD Program Deficiency
    In our 2015 NSR action, we determined that the ADEQ had adopted the
PSD increments, or maximum allowable increases, in R18-2-218--
Limitation of Pollutants in Classified Attainment Areas, but noted that
in other rules, the ADEQ used the terms ``increment'' or ``incremental
ambient standard'' where it appeared the intent was to refer to the
standards established in R18-2-218 and identified in the ADEQ's rules
as the ``maximum allowable increases.'' The ADEQ's April 2017 NSR
submittal included corrections to these provisions, which now
consistently refer to these maximum allowable increases. See R18-2-
406(E), R18-2-412(G)(2)(b), R18-2-101(51). However, we noted in our
2018 Major NSR action that the ADEQ needed to also correct this issue
in R18-2-319(A)(3) and R18-2-320(B)(6). While the ADEQ had revised
these rules to address this issue, these rules were not included in the
April 2017 NSR submittal. The 2020 Minor NSR submittal contains R18-2-
319 and R18-2-320 with the necessary corrections. Thus, we find that
this deficiency identified in our 2015 NSR action has been fully
addressed.
7. Additional Revisions Made to the ADEQ's NSR Program
    In 2017, the EPA finalized revisions to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models at Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.\17\ The revisions
became effective on May 22, 2017.\18\ The ADEQ updated its NSR program
to reference 40 CFR part 51, appendix W as of June 30, 2017 in R18-2-
301, R18-2-334, and R18-2-406. The updated cross-reference in these
ADEQ rules to 40 CFR part 51, appendix W incorporates the latest
revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. Our proposed approval
of R18-2-301, R18-2-334, and R18-2-406 will ensure that the ADEQ
portion of the Arizona SIP is updated to incorporate these new
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017).
    \18\ 82 FR 14324 (March 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the other revisions discussed above, the ADEQ has
made other minor revisions and updates to some of the submitted rules
that have not yet been approved into the Arizona SIP. Two final rule
actions completed by the ADEQ, which are included in the docket for
this action, show the specific revisions that have been made to the
rules in the 2019-20 NSR submittals. In the ADEQ's February 10, 2017
final rule, see revisions to R18-2-301, R18-2-302, R18-302.01, R18-304,
R18-2-306, R18-2-306.01, R18-2-319, R18-2-320, and R18-2-334. In the
ADEQ's December 20, 2019 final rule, see revisions to R18-2-101, R18-2-
301, R18-2-302.01, R18-2-304, R18-2-334, and R18-2-406. We have
reviewed each of the changes and determined that they are acceptable
and do not create any new disapproval issues. The changes generally
relate to correcting typographical errors, clarifying rule language,
and moving permit application requirements from an appendix to R18-2-
304.

C. Evaluation of Rules Requested To Be Removed From the SIP

    Table 2 of this preamble identifies the rules, or portions thereof,
that the ADEQ has requested to be removed from the Arizona SIP, and
which we are proposing in this action to remove from the Arizona SIP.
All but one of these rules will be replaced by the newer rules in the
2019-20 NSR submittals that are the subject of our current action.
Except for R9-3-217, paragraph A, the rules we are proposing to replace
are older versions of the rules in the 2019-20 NSR submittals. The
older versions contained deficiencies that the ADEQ needed to correct,
or language that the ADEQ otherwise determined needed to be updated to
enhance the ADEQ's program or to ensure that it meets new requirements.
The removal of these older rules would not relax any requirements in
the Arizona SIP. For the reasons stated above, we find the removal of
these rules from the SIP to be acceptable and we propose to approve the
ADEQ's request to remove these rules from the SIP.

D. Approval of Program for Visibility Protection in Class I Areas

    The ADEQ's 2020 Minor NSR submittal requests that the EPA remove
the FIPs at 40 CFR 52.145(b) related to visibility protection in Class
I areas at 40 CFR 51.307, as they pertain to major stationary sources
for which the ADEQ has PSD or NNSR jurisdiction. The relevant
substantive visibility FIP requirements that currently apply to such
sources are found at 40 CFR 52.27 (PSD sources) and 40 CFR 52.28 (NNSR
sources). These FIPs were established for sources subject to the ADEQ's
PSD and NNSR programs because the EPA had not approved the ADEQ's
visibility program under 40 CFR 51.307. Approval of the ADEQ's
visibility program under 40 CFR 51.307 would mean that these FIPs are
no longer needed to satisfy the CAA visibility program requirements at
40 CFR 51.307 for sources subject to the ADEQ's PSD and NNSR programs.
The evaluation in Attachment 1 to our TSD for this action includes the
results of our review from 2017 of how the ADEQ's NSR program rules
meet each of the required elements for CAA visibility programs in 40
CFR 51.307. Based on our review, we have determined that the ADEQ's PSD
and NNSR program rules satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, and
we are proposing to approve the ADEQ's SIP-approved NSR rules as
meeting those requirements. In conjunction with our SIP approval of
ADEQ's visibility program for major sources subject to review under the
PSD and NNSR programs, we also propose to revise the applicability of
the visibility FIPs at 40 CFR 52.27 and 40 CFR 52.28 as they pertain to
Arizona at 40 CFR 52.145(b), as these FIPs will no longer apply to
sources subject to review under ADEQ's PSD and NNSR programs. This
revision will clarify the application of these FIPs in Arizona
following our final action.
    We note that the visibility FIP at 40 CFR 52.28 would continue to
apply to sources within Arizona subject to review under the CAA NNSR
program that are or would be located on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. Similarly, the FIP at 40 CFR 52.28 would
also remain in place for sources in Arizona subject to review

under the Pima County Division of Environmental Quality's SIP-approved
NNSR program. The EPA has previously approved the visibility review
requirements in the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's SIP-
approved NNSR program as satisfying the requirements in 40 CFR 51.307.
See 84 FR 13543 (April 19, 2019). We also note that for sources within
Arizona subject to PSD review that are or would be located on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, the FIP at 40 CFR
52.27 would not apply; rather, the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 that
otherwise applies to such sources \19\ includes requirements that fully
address the visibility program requirements at 40 CFR 51.307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 40 CFR 52.144(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria under Sections
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 110(l) and 193 of the Clean Air Act?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to the
EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable. We have
determined that the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble are clear
and legally enforceable and therefore satisfy this requirement.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires SIPs to provide ``necessary
assurances that the State (or, except where the Administrator deems
inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or
a regional agency designated by the State or general purpose local
governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding,
and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out
such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of
Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or
portion thereof).'' In the EPA's recent actions on Arizona's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, we conducted a detailed
evaluation of Arizona legal authorities that provide for the ADEQ's
implementation and enforcement of CAA requirements related to that
Infrastructure SIP, as well as information showing that the ADEQ has
adequate funding and personnel to implement the relevant CAA SIP
requirements, and approved that SIP submittal with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).\20\ Accordingly, the ADEQ has provided the
necessary assurances that the ADEQ will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under State law to carry out the proposed
revisions to the ADEQ's SIP, consistent with CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 83 FR 42214 (September 20, 2018); including ``Technical
Support Document for Notice of Final Rulemaking: Evaluation of
Arizona's Infrastructure SIP for 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2''
July 30. 2018 (document ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0472-0042), 24-
28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) states: ``Each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State
after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other
applicable requirement of this chapter.'' With respect to the
procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l), based on our review of
the public process documentation included in the submittal, we find
that the ADEQ has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and
opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to submittal of this
SIP revision and has satisfied these procedural requirements under CAA
section 110(l). With respect to the substantive requirements of section
110(l), we have determined that our action on the 2019-20 NSR
submittals would, as described herein, strengthen the applicable SIP.
This action is primarily intended to correct numerous deficiencies in
the ADEQ's NSR program and provides other revisions to enhance and
update the program. Accordingly, this action will not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement.
    Section 193 of the Act, which was added by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, includes a savings clause which provides, in
pertinent part: ``No control requirement in effect, or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before
November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any
air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner
unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.'' We find that the provisions
included in 2019-20 NSR submittals would ensure equivalent or greater
emission reductions as compared to the current SIP-approved NSR program
in the nonattainment areas under ADEQ's jurisdiction. Further, this
action does not modify any pre-1990 requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas. For the reasons set forth above, our proposed
approval of the 2019-20 NSR submittals is consistent with section 193
of the Act.

F. Conclusion

    As discussed in detail above, we propose to find that the ADEQ has
corrected all remaining deficiencies identified as the bases for
limited disapproval in our 2015 NSR action and the basis for our
conditional approval in our 2018 Major NSR action. In addition, we
reviewed all other changes the ADEQ made to its NSR program in the
submitted rules for consistency with CAA requirements to ensure that no
new disapproval issues have been created. With the corrections and
demonstrations discussed above, our prior limited disapproval in 2015
and conditional approval in 2018 will become a full approval of the
ADEQ's minor NSR program, PSD program, and NNSR program, and we are
proposing full approval of the 2019-20 NSR submittals. The new and
revised rules evaluated herein meet the applicable CAA requirements.
Our proposed action would have the effect of updating the ADEQ's SIP-
approved NSR program and correcting previously identified deficiencies
and recognizing that the ADEQ's NSR program requirements also satisfy
the CAA visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307.

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and for the reasons
provided above, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the
ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP that govern the issuance of permits for
stationary sources, under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and parts C
and D of title I of the Act. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the new and amended ADEQ regulations listed in Table 1 of this
preamble, as a revision to the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to remove the existing SIP-approved
rules listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Further, for the West Central
Pinal and Nogales PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the sanctions
and sanctions clock triggered by our 2016 PM2.5 precursor
action under CAA section 179 would be permanently terminated on the
effective date of our final approval of the Ammonia PM2.5
NSR submittal. Finally, we are also proposing that the ADEQ's SIP-
approved program meets the visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307 for
NSR programs and are proposing to remove the existing visibility FIPs
for sources subject to review under the ADEQ's SIP-approved PSD or NNSR

permitting program. We are proposing this action because we find that
the 2019-20 NSR submittals meet the applicable requirements under parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, and that our action is consistent with
sections 110(a)(2), 110(l) and 193 of the Act.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
January 22, 2021. If we take final action to approve the 2019-20 NSR
submittals, our final action will incorporate the identified rule(s)
into the federally enforceable SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the ADEQ rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

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 Act. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed 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 3,
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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 8, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-27952 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80621-80624]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1061]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Vigor Industrial Drydock Movement, West Duwamish
Waterway; Seattle, WA

AGENCY:  Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone in the
West Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, Washington for scheduled drydock
movements at Vigor Industrial. The safety zone is necessary to ensure
the

safety of the maritime public and workers involved in the drydock
movements. The safety zone would prohibit any person or vessel from
entering or remaining in the safety zone when a notice of enforcement
is issued, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a Designated
Representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1061 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Christina
Sullivan, Waterways Management Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard periodically receives notification from Vigor
Industrial regarding their scheduled drydock movements in the West
Duwamish Waterway, and has established temporary safety zones to ensure
the safety of the maritime public during Vigor Industrial's operations.
The Coast Guard published a temporary safety zone; Vigor Industrial
Ferry Construction, West Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA on September 9,
2014 (79 FR 53297).
    Due to the dangers involved with a large, slow moving drydock that
will be maneuvering close to the shore, the Coast Guard proposes the
establishment of a short term safety zone that is activated on a notice
of enforcement to ensure the safety of the workers involved as well as
the maritime public during Vigor Industrial's operations.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231. Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to
establish safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and
environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.
    Vigor Industrial periodically conducts drydock movements in support
of its vessel launching operations in the West Duwamish Waterway in
Seattle, Washington. The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety
zone to ensure the safety of the workers involved as well as the
maritime public during Vigor Industrial's operations, and would do so
by prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a
Designated Representative.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone encompassing all
waters in a rectangle approximately 450-yards-by-500-yards at the mouth
of the West Duwamish Waterway as it empties into Elliot Bay in Seattle,
Washington. The safety zone is adjacent to the northeastern tip of
Harbor Island in Seattle, WA.
    To request permission to enter the zone during the times set out by
the notice of enforcement contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at
206-217-6001 or the Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound on VHF Channel
14. If permission for entry is granted vessels would be required
proceed at a minimum speed for navigation.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone would
impact a small designated area of the West Duwamish Waterway for less
than 6 hours per occurrence. From 2005 through 2015, there were a total
of 10 instances in which the Coast Guard issued a safety zone for the
movement of the Vigor Dry Dock. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has

a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that
it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    This proposed rule was determined to have potential tribal
implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would impact vessel traffic
in the West Duwamish Waterway. The Coast Guard consulted with the
Muckleshoot tribe on this notice of proposed rulemaking. In order to
reach an agreeable timeframe that avoids impacts to treaty fishing
activities, the Coast Guard will consult with the Muckleshoot tribe and
Vigor Industrial once it receives notification from Vigor Industrial
concerning drydock movements that require the enforcement of the safety
zone. If agreement is not reached, the Coast Guard, as a Federal
trustee, will conduct consultation with the Muckleshoot tribe to ensure
Vigor movements will avoid Treaty impacts.
    If you believe this proposed rule has additional implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone to ensure the safety of the maritime
public. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1340 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1340   Safety Zone; Vigor Industrial Drydock Movement, West
Duwamish Waterway; Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the West Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, WA encompassed within the area
created by connecting the following points: 47[deg]35'04'' N.,
122[deg]21'30'' W. thence westerly to 47[deg]35'04'' N.,
122[deg]21'50'' W. thence northerly to 47[deg]35'19'' N.,
122[deg]21'50'' W. thence easterly to 47[deg]35'19'' N.,
122[deg]21'30'' W. thence southerly to 47[deg]35'04'' N.,
122[deg]21'30'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
subpart C of this part, when a notice of enforcement has been issued,
no person may enter or remain in the safety zone created by this
section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a Designated
Representative. See subpart C of this part for additional safety zone
information and requirements. Vessel operators wishing to enter the
zone during the enforcement period must request permission for entry by
contacting the Joint Harbor Operation Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the
Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound on VHF channel 14.
    (2) In order to reach an agreeable timeframe that avoids impacts to
treaty fishing activities, the Coast Guard will consult with the
Muckleshoot tribe and Vigor Industrial once it receives notification
from Vigor Industrial concerning drydock movements that require the
enforcement of the safety zone. If agreement is not reached, the Coast
Guard, as a Federal trustee, will conduct consultation with the
Muckleshoot tribe to ensure Vigor movements will avoid Treaty impacts.

    (c) Enforcement periods. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section will be enforced by the Captain of the Port only upon
notice. Notice of enforcement by the Captain of the Port will be
provided prior to execution of the drydock movement by all appropriate
means, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means will include
issuance of a notice of enforcement to be published in the Federal
Register, Local Notice to Mariners, and Special Marine Information
Broadcast.

    Dated: November 8, 2016.
M.W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2016-27494 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 7353]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD19-13-000]

Notice of Technical Conference; Reliability Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Thursday, June 27,
2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will
be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of
the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission will issue an agenda at a
later date in a supplemental notice.
    The conference will be open for the public to attend. There is no
fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to
preregister online at: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-27-19-form.asp.
    Those wishing to be considered for participation in panel
discussions should submit nominations no later than close of business
on March 15, 2019 online at: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-27-19-speaker-form.asp.
    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's website, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with
internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by
navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov and
locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1 (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Lodie White<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
(202) 502-8368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 25, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03764 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P