[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43692-43695]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14095]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0321; FRL-10009-81-Region 9]

Air Plan Conditional Approval and Disapproval; Arizona; Maricopa
County; Power Plants, Fuel Burning Equipment, and Internal Combustion
Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
conditional approvals for two revisions to the Maricopa County portion
of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning fuel burning
equipment and internal combustion engines. The EPA is also finalizing a
disapproval for one revision to the Maricopa County portion of the
Arizona SIP concerning power plants. This action was proposed in the
Federal Register on December 30, 2019, and concerns emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) from combustion sources.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0321. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, 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. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On December 30, 2019 (84 FR 71862), the EPA proposed action on the
following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Arizona
SIP. Table 1 lists the rules on which the EPA is finalizing action,
with the dates they were revised by the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD), the dates they were submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), and the type of action that
the EPA is finalizing for each rule.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Rule No.               Rule title                 Revised              Submitted              Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
322...............  Power Plant Operations....  November 2, 2016....  June 22, 2017.......  Disapproval.
323...............  Fuel Burning Equipment      November 2, 2016....  June 22, 2017.......  Conditional
                     from Industrial/                                                       Approval.
                     Commercial/Institutional
                     (ICI) Sources.
324...............  Stationary Reciprocating    November 2, 2016....  June 22, 2017.......  Conditional
                     Internal Combustion                                                    Approval.
                     Engines (RICE).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Rule 322

    We proposed to disapprove Rule 322 because the rule does not
satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act). The deficient provisions include the following:
    a. Air Pollution Control Officer discretion to approve alternative
control strategies as reasonably available control technology (RACT)
without further approval from the EPA.
    b. NOX emission limits for steam generating units used
for electricity generation that were less stringent than RACT.
    c. Overly broad exemptions from certain requirements during
emergency fuel use operations.
    d. Air Pollution Control Officer discretion to extend compliance
deadlines for applicable units.
    e. Absence of a compliance determination requirement, such as a
regular stack testing requirement.

2. Rules 323 and 324

    We proposed to conditionally approve these rules pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(4) because, although rule deficiencies preclude full SIP
approval pursuant to section 110(k)(3), the rules largely comply with
the relevant CAA requirements, and the MCAQD and the ADEQ have
committed to provide the EPA with a SIP submission within one year of
this final action that will include specific rule revisions that would
adequately address the deficiencies.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the rules, their
deficiencies, the MCAQD and ADEQ commitments, and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received a request to clarify certain aspects of
the proposed rulemaking from the MCAQD including the scope of the
rulemaking, the context of our stringency analysis for NOX
emission limits, and the necessary testing requirements. The MCAQD's
questions on our proposed rulemaking and our clarifications are
included in a memorandum to the rulemaking docket. These comments did
not change our assessment of the rules. No adverse comments were
received, and no comments were submitted through www.regulations.gov.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. As authorized in section 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA disapproves Rule 322 for inclusion into
the Arizona SIP. As a result, offset sanctions will be imposed unless
the EPA approves a subsequent SIP revision that corrects the rule
deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action.
Highway sanctions will be imposed unless the EPA approves a subsequent
SIP revision that corrects the rule deficiencies within 24 months of
the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed
under section 179 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31. Additionally, section
110(c) requires the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan
(FIP) within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies.
    Secondly, as authorized in sections 110(k)(4) and 301(a) of the
CAA, the EPA conditionally approves Rules 323 and 324 into the Arizona
SIP. If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the necessary rule revisions by
the specified deadline, and the EPA approves the submission, then the
identified deficiencies will be cured. However, if the MCAQD, through
the ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions within the required
timeframe, the conditional approval will be treated as a disapproval
for those rules for which the revisions are not submitted. This action
incorporates the conditionally approved submitted rules into the
Arizona SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the MCAQD
rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that
plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the
CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available
through 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

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this SIP disapproval and conditional approval does not
in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but
simply disapproves and conditionally approves certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This SIP
disapproval and conditional approval does not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements but simply disapproves and conditionally approves
certain pre-existing State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action disapproves and conditionally approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
disapproving would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this SIP disapproval and conditional
approval does not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but
simply disapproves and conditionally approves certain pre-existing
State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 18, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 24, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending Part 52,
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.119 by adding paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.119  Identification of plan--conditional approvals.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The EPA is conditionally approving portions of the Arizona SIP
revisions submitted on June 22, 2017. The conditional approval is based
upon the February 25, 2019 commitment from the State to submit a SIP
revision consisting of rule revisions that will cure the identified
deficiencies within twelve (12) months after the EPA's conditional
approval. If the State fails to meet its commitment, the conditional
approval will be treated as a disapproval with respect to the rules for
which the corrections are not made. The following MCAQD rules are
conditionally approved:
    (i) Rule 323, Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/
Institutional (ICI) Sources and;
    (ii) Rule 324, Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE);

0
3. In Sec.  52.120 amend Table 4 in paragraph (c) by revising the
entries for ``Rule 323'' and ``Rule 324'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                     Table 4--EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State                                   Additional
      County citation            Title/subject      effective date    EPA approval date         explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Regulation III--Control of Air Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Rule 323...................  Fuel Burning               11/02/2016  7/20/2020, [INSERT     Submitted on June 22,
                              Equipment from                         Federal Register       2017.
                              Industrial/                            CITATION].
                              Commercial/
                              Institutional (ICI)
                              Sources.
Rule 324...................  Stationary                 11/02/2016  7/20/2020, [INSERT     Submitted on June 22,
                              Reciprocating                          Federal Register       2017.
                              Internal Combustion                    CITATION].
                              Engines (RICE).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  52.133 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.133  Rules and regulations.

* * * * *
    (h) Maricopa County Air Quality Department Rule 322 ``Power Plant
Operations'', submitted on June 22, 2017, contains: An option for the
Air Pollution Control Officer to apply alternative emission limits to
applicable equipment, and alternative compliance deadlines, without
Agency approval of those limits and deadlines into the Arizona State
Implementation Plan; limits that have not been demonstrated to meet
RACT; overly broad exemptions from certain requirements during
emergency fuel use operations; and a lack of sufficient compliance
determination requirements. Therefore, this rule is disapproved.

[FR Doc. 2020-14095 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


State, and local sources, it would be inappropriate to attribute the
full benefit of the project to only one source of funding (such as
the local share or the TIGER Discretionary Grant itself).
    All costs and benefits of the project should be evaluated,
including benefits and costs that fall outside of the jurisdiction
sponsoring the project. It is also important that the applicant
assume the continuation of reasonable and sound management practices
in establishing a baseline. Assuming a baseline scenario in which
the owner of the facility does no maintenance on the facility and
ignores traffic problems and maintenance is not realistic and will
lead to the overstatement of project benefits.
    In addition to the baseline, the applicant should present and
consider reasonable alternatives in the analysis. Smaller-scale and
more focused projects should be evaluated for comparison purposes.
For example, if an applicant is requesting funds to replace a pier,
it should also analyze the alternative of rehabilitating the current
pier. Similarly, if an applicant seeks funds to establish a
relatively large streetcar project, it should also evaluate a more
focused project serving only the more densely populated corridors or
an area.

Affected Population

    Applicants should clearly identify the population that the
project will affect and measure the number of passengers (for a
passenger project) and the amount of freight (for a freight project)
affected by the project. If possible, passenger and freight traffic
should be measured in passenger-miles and freight ton-miles (and
possibly value of freight). If, as is often the case (e.g.,
projected growth in highway traffic), the forecasted traffic volume
is not the same for all years, then the applicant needs to break out
the forecasted traffic annually. In some cases, the characteristics
of the passenger population or of the freight cargo may be important
(e.g., whether the passengers are members of a disadvantaged group,
or are spread across a multi-state region, or whether the cargo
being shipped is predominantly export traffic). Measures of freight
traffic might include growing levels of port calls. In some cases,
the relevant population is the volume of traffic that is diverted
from one mode to another. Applicants must clearly identify which
population will be affected by any particular benefit. For example,
the affected population that will enjoy travel time savings may be
different from the affected population benefiting from reduced
shipping costs. Further, the applicant should be realistic as to how
the project affects these populations. For example, improving rail
access to a wholesale distribution center near an urban area may
take some trucks off the road that had been carrying freight from a
truck/rail intermodal yard to the wholesale distribution center.
However, it is unrealistic to claim benefits from reduced truck
traffic all the way from the shipping origin point hundreds or
thousands of miles away to the truck/rail intermodal yard, if that
traffic would be likely to be moving much of this distance by rail
already.

Discounting

    Applicants should discount future benefits and costs to present
values using a real discount rate (i.e., a discount rate that
reflects the opportunity cost of money net of the rate of inflation)
of 7 percent, following guidance provided by OMB in Circulars A-4
and A-94 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default/).
Applicants may also provide an alternative analysis using a real
discount rate of 3 percent. The latter approach should be used when
the alternative use of funds currently dedicated to the project
would be other public expenditures, rather than private investment.
    As a first step, applicants should present the year-by-year
stream of benefits and costs from the project. Applicants should
clearly identify when they expect costs and benefits to occur. The
beginning point for the year-by-year stream of benefits should be
the first year in which the project will start generating costs or
benefits. The ending point should be far enough in the future to
encompass most or all of the significant costs and benefits
resulting from the project (at least 20 years in the future) but not
to exceed the usable life of the asset without capital
improvement.\12\ In presenting these year-by-year streams,
applicants should measure them in constant (or ``real'') dollars
prior to discounting. Applicants should not add in the effects of
inflation to the estimates of future benefits and costs prior to
discounting. Once an applicant has generated the stream of costs and
benefits in constant dollars, it should then discount these
estimates to arrive at a present value of costs and benefits using
the real discount rate specified above. The standard formula for the
discount factor in any given year is 1/(1 + r)\t\, where ``r'' is
the discount rate and ``t'' measures the number of years in the
future that the costs or benefits will occur. Infrequently, benefits
or costs will be the same in constant dollars for all years. In
these limited cases, an applicant can calculate the formula for the
present value of

an ordinary annuity instead of showing a year-by-year
calculation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In some cases the application may use a fixed term of years
to analyze benefits and costs (e.g., 20 years), even though the
applicant knows that the project will last longer than that and
continue to have benefits and costs in later years. In these cases,
the project will retain a ``residual value'' at the end of the
analysis period. For instance, a new bridge may be expected to have
a 100-year life but the analysis period for the benefit-cost
analysis might cover only 40 years. In such cases, a residual value
can be claimed as a benefit (or cost offset) for the asset at the
end of the analysis period. One method to estimate the residual
value is to calculate the percentage of the project that will not be
depreciated or used up at the end of the analysis period and to
multiply this percentage by the original cost of the project.
Different components of the project may have different depreciation
rates--land typically does not depreciate. The estimated residual
value is assigned to the end of the analysis period and should then
be discounted to its present value as would any other cost or
benefit occurring at that time. Note that a residual value of a
project can only be claimed if the project will be kept in operation
beyond the end of the analysis period. If the project will be
retired at that time, a salvage value (reflecting revenues raised
from the decommissioning of the project) can be claimed.
    \13\ See http://www.brighthub.com/money/personal-finance/articles/17948.aspx. For example, 10.594 is the discount factor that
would be multiplied by an annual benefit to get the present value of
a constant benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of seven
percent. If the constant annual benefit is $500,000, then the
present value of the benefits is $5.297 million. In these limited
cases, the applicant must show the calculation of the discount
factor of the ordinary annuity formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forecasting

    Benefit-cost analyses of transportation projects almost always
depend on forecasts of projected levels of usage (road traffic, port
calls, etc.). When an applicant is using such forecasts to generate
benefit estimates, it must assess the reliability of these
forecasts. If the applicant is using outside forecasts, it must
provide a citation and an appropriate page number for the forecasts.
An applicant should carefully review any outside forecasts for
reliability before using them in its analyses. In cases where an
applicant is using its own estimates, it should clearly demonstrate
in the analysis the methodology it used to forecast affected
population (e.g., how it generated traffic volumes for cars and
trucks on a highway section). The number of individuals who enjoy
the benefits of a project will partly determine the net benefits of
the project. Consequently, accurate forecasts are essential to
conducting a quality benefit-cost analysis. Applicants should also
take great care to match forecasts of affected population to the
corresponding year. For example, using projected traffic levels for
2030 to generate benefits for all the earlier years is incorrect.
For more information on forecasting, applicants can refer to the
forecasting section of FHWA's Economic Analysis Primer (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer06.cfm). While
produced for analysis of highway projects, the primer is a good
source of information on issues related to all transportation
forecasting.

Costs

    As noted above, the estimate of costs must pertain to the same
project as the estimate of benefits. If the TIGER Discretionary
Grant is to pay for only part of the project, but the project is
indivisible (i.e., no one part of the project would have independent
utility), then the benefits of the whole project should be compared
to the costs of the whole project, including costs paid for by
State, local, and private partners other than the Federal
government. Applicants may not claim that the TIGER Discretionary
Grant ``leverages'' the financial contributions of other parties,
and therefore that all the benefits of the project are attributable
to the TIGER Discretionary Grant, even though the TIGER
Discretionary Grant only pays for part of the project.
    The analysis of costs should be equally as rigorous as the
analysis of benefits. The lack of a useful analysis of expected
project costs may be a basis for denying the award of a TIGER
Discretionary Grant to an applicant. In general, applicants should
use a life-cycle cost analysis approach in estimating the costs of
the project. The Department expects applicants to include operating,
maintenance, and other life-cycle costs of the project, along with
capital costs. In addition to construction costs, other direct costs
may include design and land acquisition. If the time period
considered in the analysis is long enough to require the
rehabilitation of the facility during the period of analysis, then
the costs of that rehabilitation should be included. External costs,
such as noise, increased congestion, and environmental pollutants
resulting from the use of the facility or related changes in usage
on other facilities in the same network, should be considered as
costs in the analysis. Additionally, applicants should include, to
the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as
delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work
zones or detours. The applicant should correctly discount annual
costs to arrive at a present value of the project's cost.

Types of Benefits-Livability

    There are several potential benefits that a project could
generate that affect livability. The most important aspect of
livability is accessibility to non-single-occupancy vehicle modes of
transportation, such as transit, bicycle paths, and sidewalks.
Measuring the benefits of increased accessibility should start with
a quantitative measure of the increase in accessibility--how many
people will have access to these alternative modes who did not have
access before? The analysis should go on to estimate how many people
are actually likely to use these newly available transportation
modes and how much of their existing single-occupancy vehicle travel
are those people likely to divert to these alternative modes.
Finally, the analysis should attempt to estimate the monetary value
that people place on access to these newly available transportation
modes. In some cases, monetary values may be estimated based on
existing market transactions--e.g., bicycle rentals. In others,
differentials in the market values of land or rents between
residences and businesses that are already easily accessible (e.g. <
0.5 miles) to these modes and those that are in the same areas but
not easily accessible (e.g. > 0.5 miles) can be used as a proxy
estimate of the value of this access. In other cases, no objective
market values are available, and the applicant should make the best
subjective estimate it can of the average value that this
accessibility has to those who now have access to these alternative
modes.
    One useful source of guidance on measuring benefits of bicycle
facilities is Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 552, Guidelines for Analysis of
Investments in Bicycle Facilities (Washington: TRB, 2006) (available
at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf.)
    Transit and bicycle paths may provide greater accessibility to
alternative transportation modes, but they will not actually enhance
livability unless people actually want to use them, and the desire
to use them will depend in part on where these modes go and on the
amenities provided with them. An important part of accessibility is
making sure not only that people's residences are accessible to
these modes, but that the modes connect to workplaces, schools,
shopping, and other desired destinations. Assessments of enhanced
accessibility should describe where these alternative modes go as
well as where they start.
    Land use changes are also an important aspect of livability.
When people live closer to their workplaces, their schools, and
shopping, they will be more likely to use these alternative
transportation modes. Transportation changes that encourage more
mixed-use land development (where residences are intermixed with
workplaces and shopping) will shorten the length of travel and
encourage more use of non-highway modes. The analysis should
evaluate the extent to which the proposed transportation project
will encourage these changes in land use and be coordinated with
zoning changes and other public and private investments.
    Changes in land use that result in shorter travel distances can
result in long-term travel time savings, and the quantitative extent
of these time savings can be estimated. Values of time can then be
used to estimate the monetary value of these time savings. The
applicant should propose a subjective estimate of the monetary value
of land use changes. Land use changes can also reduce the total cost
of transportation for the affected population, so applicants should
attempt to measure the effects of the project and associated land
use changes on average household transportation expenditures.
    In using differentials in property values or rents to measure
the value of changes in accessibility, applicants must identify
other factors that might have caused property values and/or rents to
change and isolate the portion of the change that is attributable to
the change in accessibility. Applicants must also be careful to
avoid double-counting. If the applicant has already counted
reductions in travel time as a benefit, the value of those
reductions in travel time may get capitalized in changes in property
values or rents, and the applicant must be careful not to count
those benefits again as part of the change in property values.
    Finally, an important aspect of livability is the availability
of transportation to disadvantaged communities, such as low-income
people, non-drivers, people with disabilities, and senior citizens.
Applicants should assess the extent to which their projects will
improve transportation opportunities and quality of life for members
of these disadvantaged communities. While there may not be well-
defined methodologies for assigning monetary values to these
enhancements to accessibility, applicants should attempt to measure
the size of the disadvantaged community affected and make subjective
judgments of the monetary values that should be assigned to these
improvements.

Types of Benefits-Economic Competitiveness

    Economic competitiveness benefits might include reduced
operating costs due to infrastructure improvements. In some cases,

a project produces economic competitiveness benefits because the
existing users of the facility will have lower operating costs after
the improvement is completed. In other cases, the economic
competitiveness benefits result from modal diversion--users shifting
from a higher-cost transportation mode to a lower-cost
transportation mode when the quality of service on the lower-cost
mode becomes more competitive. In this case, the applicant should
demonstrate clearly what the basis is of any estimated modal
diversion. In estimating operating cost savings, it is important to
avoid double-counting. For example, applicants must not count both
the reductions in fuel costs and the overall reductions in operating
costs, because fuel costs are part of operating costs. For freight
projects, economic competitiveness benefits may be particularly
significant if the project reduces the costs of transporting freight
that will be exported.
    One particular form of reduced operating costs is travel time
savings. Road improvements or other projects whose purpose is to
relieve congestion frequently generate travel time savings for
travelers and shippers that contribute to economic competitiveness
and quality of life to non-business travelers. Where this is the
case, applicants should clearly demonstrate how the travel time
savings are calculated and should account for induced travel demand
to the extent practical or applicable. If travel time savings vary
over time, the applicant must clearly show savings by year. Once the
applicant generates its estimate of hours saved, it should apply the
Department's guidance on the value of time to those estimates
(http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm) to monetize them for
both business and non-business travelers. The value of time saving
is often among the largest benefit components of transportation
capacity enhancement projects.\14\ Transportation projects may also
enhance economic competitiveness by improving the reliability of
travel times (i.e., reducing the variation in travel times), in
addition to the benefits from a reduction in the average travel
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ There is a growing body of academic research that attempts
to value the improved reliability of travel time in addition to
travel time savings. Improved travel time reliability resulting from
a project can influence business inventory costs and travel time
allotted for unexpected delays. Applicants attempting to quantify
the value of improved reliability of a transportation project as
part of a benefit-cost analysis should carefully define how they
have measured and valued it for the project, with particular
attention to its relationship to estimates and valuations of travel
time saving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Freight-related projects that improve roads, rails, and ports
frequently generate savings to shippers (e.g., fuel savings and
other operating cost savings) that they may pass on in whole or in
part to shippers by way of lower freight rates. Shippers may, in
turn, pass on, in whole or in part, these savings to consumers. If
applicants are projecting these savings as benefits, they need to
carefully demonstrate how the proposed project would generate such
benefits. However, applicants must be careful to count the value of
the fuel and other operating cost savings (however allocated among
carriers, shippers, and consumers) only once in the benefit-cost
analysis; it cannot be re-counted in full each time it transfers
from one group to the other as this would entail double-counting of
the same benefit.
    Applicants should also guard against analysis that double-counts
other kinds of benefits. Analysis should distinguish between real
benefits and transfer payments. Benefits reflect real resource usage
and overall benefits to society, while transfers represent payments
by one group to another and do not represent a net increase in
societal benefits. Employment or output multipliers that purport to
measure secondary effects should not be included as societal
benefits because these secondary effects are generally the same (per
dollar spent) regardless of what kind of project is funded.
    As noted earlier in this Appendix (see Benefit-Cost Analysis vs.
Economic Impact Analysis), applicants must be extremely cautious
about including job creation and economic development impacts as
societal benefits in the benefit-cost analysis. In the case of job
creation, for example, every job represents both a cost to the
employer (paying a wage) and a benefit to the employee (receiving a
wage), so it is a transfer payment, rather than a net benefit.
However, if a project increases the productivity of labor, then the
applicant can count the increased productivity as a benefit. For
example, if the project allows workers working at low-productivity
jobs to switch to high-productivity jobs, then the increase in their
productivity can be counted as a benefit. But the applicant needs to
demonstrate rigorously how such productivity benefits are estimated
and the exact time period over which the productivity benefits
occur. Simply asserting these gains is inadequate.
    With respect to economic development, estimates of capital
investments or property tax revenues are not legitimate benefits in
a benefit-cost analysis. A property tax is a benefit to the tax
assessor, but it is a cost to the taxpayer. An applicant can
potentially claim an increase in the value of land as a benefit if
the transportation project increases the value and productivity of
the land. However, the applicant needs to count the increase in the
value of the land carefully to avoid double counting and transfer
payments. For example, if the property value goes up by the exact
same value as the developer's investment, then this is not a
benefit. Property value increases over and above the developer's
investment may potentially be a benefit from the project. However,
if this property value increase is due to improved travel times that
the applicant has already included as a benefit then there is no
additional benefit here. The analysis should also consider to what
extent an increase in land values induced by the project in one area
causes a reduction in land values in some other area. Only the net
increase in land value can be counted as a benefit. Applicants must
carefully net out any embedded time savings in the property value
increase before claiming any benefits. Simply asserting that there
is a property tax increase net of time savings is inadequate. The
Department expects any applicant claiming these types of benefits to
provide a rigorous justification of the benefit that shows how it is
derived from the project (rather than from some other non-project
investment) and that shows how increases in property values
attributable to other benefits (such as travel time savings) have
been deducted. Applicants should note that any claimed societal
benefit from a property value increase is only a one-time stock
benefit. Applicants can not treat it as a stream of benefits
accruing annually.

Types of Benefits-Safety

    Road projects can also improve the safety of transportation. A
well-designed project can reduce fatalities and injuries as well as
reduce other crash costs, such as hazardous materials releases. The
applicant should clearly demonstrate how the project will improve
safety. For example, to claim a reduction in fatalities, an
applicant must clearly demonstrate how the existence of the project
would have prevented the types of fatalities that commonly occur in
that area. Applicants should use crash causation factors or similar
analyses of causes of crashes to show the extent to which the type
of improvements proposed would actually reduce the likelihood of the
kinds of crashes that actually had occurred. Alternatively, when
only a few cases are involved, the applicant should provide a
description of the incidents and demonstrate the linkage between the
proposed project and crash reduction. In some cases, safety benefits
may occur because of modal diversion from a less safe mode to a more
safe mode. When this type of benefit is claimed, the applicant
should provide a clear analysis of why the forecasted modal
diversion will take place. Once the applicant has established a
reasonable count of the incidents that are likely to be prevented by
the project, it should apply the Department's guidance on value of
life and injuries (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm) to
monetize them. Sources of information on the social benefits of
reducing crash costs are discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's rulemaking on Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY
2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf). The economic values of various benefits are
summarized in Table VIII-5 on page VIII-60.

Types of Benefits-State of Good Repair

    Many infrastructure projects that improve the state of good
repair of transportation infrastructure can reduce long-term
maintenance and repair costs. These benefits are in addition to the
benefits of reductions in travel time, shipping costs, and crashes
which the applicant should account for separately. Applicants should
include these maintenance and repair savings as benefits. Improving
state of good repair may also reduce operating costs and congestion
by reducing the amount of time that the

infrastructure is out of service due to maintenance and repairs, or
may prevent a facility (such as a bridge) from being removed from
service entirely (i.e. low-volume facilities that would cost too
much to replace). In the latter case, the analysis should include a
reasonable assessment of the cost that closing the facility would
have on system users who would be required to take longer and more
circuitous routes, as well as the probability (and likely time in
the future) when the bridge would need to be closed even if sound
maintenance practices had been pursued. Improving state of good
repair may also reduce user costs if, for example, the roughness of
a road reduces travel speeds or increases damage to vehicles.
Improving state of good repair can also have safety benefits. The
application should also consider differences in maintenance and
repair costs when comparing different project alternatives. For
example, an applicant can compare the maintenance costs that would
be required after rehabilitating an existing pier with those that
would be required after building a new one. As part of the data that
go into estimating the benefits of improving the state of good
repair, applicants should provide accepted metrics for assessing an
asset's current condition. For example, applicants can use Present
Serviceability Ratings (PSR) to discuss pavement condition and
bridge sufficiency ratings to discuss the condition of a bridge. As
discussed in the section on costs, the Department expects applicants
to consider the life-cycle costs of the project when making these
comparisons.

Types of Benefits-Sustainability

    Transportation can generate environmental costs in the form of
emissions of ``criteria pollutants'' (e.g., SOX,
NOX, and particulates) and from the emission of
greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Increased
traffic congestion results in increased levels of these emissions.
Transportation projects that reduce congestion can reduce these
emissions and produce societal benefits given reduced idling and
otherwise constant vehicle miles travelled. Also, transportation
projects that encourage transportation users to shift from more-
polluting modes to less-polluting modes can similarly reduce
emissions. Applicants claiming these types of benefits must clearly
demonstrate and quantify how the project will reduce emissions. Once
an applicant has adequately quantified levels of emission
reductions, it should estimate the dollar value of these benefits.
Sources of information on the social benefits of reducing criteria
pollutant emissions are discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's rulemaking on Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY
2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf).
    The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon has
recently issued its guidance on ``Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'' (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/sem_finalrule_appendix15a.pdf). This guidance lays out a range of
values to use for monetizing the social cost of carbon at various
years in the future and at various discount rates. Applicants should
clearly indicate how and to what degree calculations of benefits in
their analyses are based on these assumed values of CO2
emissions reduction.

Transparency and Reproducibility of Calculations

    Applicants should make every effort to make the results of their
analyses as transparent and reproducible as possible. Applicants
should clearly set out basic assumptions, methods, and data
underlying the analysis and discuss any uncertainties associated
with the estimates.
    A Department reviewer reading the analysis should be able to
understand the basic elements of the analysis and the way in which
the applicant derived the estimates. If the application refers the
reader to more detailed documentation to explain how the
calculations were done, that documentation must go beyond merely
providing spreadsheets. It must include a thorough verbal
description of how the calculation was done, including references to
tabs and cells in the spreadsheet. This verbal description should
include specific sources for all the numbers in the spreadsheet that
are not calculated from the spreadsheet itself.
    If an applicant uses a ``pre-packaged'' economic model to
calculate net benefits, the applicant should provide annual benefits
and costs by benefit and cost type for the entire analysis period.
In any case, applicants must provide a detailed explanation of the
assumptions used to run the model (e.g., peak traffic hours and
traffic volume during peak hours, mix of traffic by cars, buses, and
trucks, etc.). The applicant must provide enough information so that
a Department reviewer can follow the general logic of the estimates
(and, in the case of spreadsheet models, reproduce them).
    Ideally, the applicant should be able to summarize the results
of all pertinent data and cost and benefit calculations in a single
spreadsheet tab (or table in Word). A Department reviewer should be
able to understand the calculations in spreadsheet models both from
directions in the spreadsheet and any accompanying text. The
following provides a simplified example for expository purposes of
discounted costs and benefits from a road project providing travel
time savings only to local travelers over the course of five years
following a one-year period of construction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JY11.005

    Most applicant analyses will be more complicated than this
example and will likely include several benefit categories. However,
the summary cost and benefit data should be as transparent and as
easy to follow and replicate as the example above.

Appendix B: Additional Information on Applying Through Grants.gov

    Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER Discretionary Grants must be
submitted through Grants.gov. To apply for funding through
Grants.gov, applicants must be properly registered. Complete
instructions on how to register and apply can be found at http://www.grants.gov. If interested parties experience difficulties at any
point during registration or application process, please call the
Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

    Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however,
processing delays may occur and it can take up to several weeks for
first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password.
It is highly recommended that applicants start the registration
process as early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude
submitting an application by the deadlines specified. Applications
will not be accepted after the relevant due date; delayed
registration is not an acceptable reason for extensions. In order to
apply for TIGER Discretionary Grant funding under this announcement
and to apply for funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are
required to complete the following:
    1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS number is required for
Grants.gov registration. The Office of Management and Budget
requires that all businesses and nonprofit applicants for Federal
funds include a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number in
their applications for a new award or renewal of an existing award.
A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the
universal standard for identifying and keeping track of entities
receiving Federal funds. The identifier is used for tracking
purposes and to validate address and point of contact information
for Federal assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients.
The DUNS number will be used throughout the grant life cycle.
Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Obtain a DUNS
number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by applying online at http://www.dunandbradstreet.com.
    2. Acquire or Renew Registration with the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) Database. All applicants for Federal financial
assistance maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database. An applicant must be registered in the
CCR to successfully register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the
repository for standard information about Federal financial
assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Organizations
that have previously submitted applications via Grants.gov are
already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov
registration. Please note, however, that applicants must update or
renew their CCR registration at least once per year to maintain an
active status, so it is critical to check registration status well
in advance of relevant application deadlines. Information about CCR
registration procedures can be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov.
    3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a
Grants.gov Username and Password. Complete your AOR profile on
Grants.gov and create your username and password. You will need to
use your organization's DUNS Number to complete this step. For more
information about the registration process, go to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
    4. Acquire Authorization for your AOR from the E-Business Point
of Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at your organization must log
in to Grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR. Please note that there
can be more than one AOR for your organization.
    5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov. Please use
the following identifying information when searching for the TIGER
funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 20.933, titled
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Discretionary Grants for
Capital Investments II.
    6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements
Outlined in this Funding Availability Announcement. Within 24-48
hours after submitting your electronic application, you should
receive an e-mail validation message from Grants.gov. The validation
message will tell you whether the application has been received and
validated or rejected, with an explanation. You are urged to submit
your application at least 72 hours prior to the due date of the
application to allow time to receive the validation message and to
correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.
    Note: When uploading attachments please use generally accepted
formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture
files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, please do not save
and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the
following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs,
.cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

    If you experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond
your control that prevent you from submitting your application by
the deadline of October 31, 2011 at 5 p.m. EDT, you must contact
Robert Mariner at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>within 24
hours after the deadline and request approval to submit your
application. At that time, DOT staff will require you to e-mail the
complete grant application, your DUNS number, and provide a
Grants.gov Help Desk tracking number(s). After DOT staff review all
of the information submitted as well as contacts the Grants.gov Help
Desk to validate the technical issues you reported, DOT staff will
contact you to either approve or deny your request to submit a late
application. If the technical issues you reported cannot be
validated, your application will be rejected as untimely.
    To ensure a fair competition for limited discretionary funds,
the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late
submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before
the deadline date; (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on
how to register and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure to
follow all of the instructions in the funding availability notice;
and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant's computer
or information technology (IT) environment.

Appendix C: Additional Information on Project Readiness Guidelines

    As applicants develop their applications, there are some
guidelines on project readiness that they should consider. The TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are available for a limited period of time
(DOT's ability to obligate the funds expires after September 30,
2013), and DOT may be limited as to when they may obligate the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds to a project if it is not far enough along
in the project development process. The application package should
provide concrete evidence of project milestones, financial capacity
and commitment in order to support project readiness. Each operating
administration with the responsibility for obligating the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds has its own regulations, policies, and
procedures that they may apply for projects that have been selected
for TIGER Discretionary Grant funds. In some cases, an operating
administration may obligate a portion of the overall amount of funds
that an applicant has been selected to receive so that such an
applicant may use that portion of the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds for eligible pre-construction activities, delaying the balance
of the obligation of funds until all pre-construction requirements
have been completed.
    The guidelines below provide additional details about some of
these pre-obligation steps (including, but not limited to, planning
requirements, environmental approvals, right-of-way acquisitions,
and design completion) and suggest milestones each project should
aim to achieve in order be able to obligate the full amount of
awarded TIGER Discretionary Grant funds in advance of the obligation
deadline of September 30, 2013.
    Applicants should demonstrate that they can reasonably expect to
complete all of these pre-obligation requirements no later than June
30, 2013, in order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds are likely to be obligated in advance of the September
30, 2013 statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not
put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they
can be obligated. Applicants that are unfamiliar with, or have
questions about, the requirements that a proposed project or
projects may need to complete in order for the operating
administration to obligate TIGER Discretionary Grant funds may
contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with questions. The below information is
not an exhaustive list of the requirements that a project may need
to comply with in order for TIGER Discretionary Grant funds to be
obligated by the operating administration that is administering the
TIGER Discretionary Grant.
    State and Local Planning: Project activities that are focused on
refining scope and completing Federal environmental reviews are
eligible capital expenses under the TIGER Discretionary Grants
Program and are an essential part of project development. A project
that receives TIGER Discretionary Grant funds may be required to be
approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization or State in the
Long Range Plans and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Applicants
should take steps to ensure that the project will be included in the
relevant plan, if the project is required to be included in such
planning documents before an operating administration may obligate
funds to the project.
    If the project is not included in the relevant planning
documents at the time the

application is submitted, applicants should submit a certification
from the appropriate planning agency that actions are underway at
the time of application to include the project in the relevant
planning document on or before June 30, 2013. If the obligation of
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for construction or other activities
is contingent on the project being included in the relevant planning
documents, applicants should demonstrate they can reasonably expect
to have the project included in such planning documents by March 30,
2013, in order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds are likely to be obligated in advance of the September
30, 2013 statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not
put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they
can be obligated. The applicant should provide a schedule
demonstrating when the project will be added to the relevant
planning documents.
    Environmental Approvals: Projects should have received all
environmental approvals, including satisfaction of all Federal,
State and local requirements and completion of the National
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') process at the time the
application is submitted or should demonstrate that receipt of all
approvals can occur by June 30, 2013, in order to give DOT comfort
that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be obligated
in advance of the September 30, 2013 statutory deadline, and that
any unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds
at risk of expiring before they can be obligated.
    If the obligation of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for
construction or other activities is contingent on completion of
other approvals that can only take place after the environmental
approvals process, the applicant should demonstrate that they can
reasonably expect to have all environmental approvals by March 30,
2013, or other date sufficiently in advance of June 30, 2013, in
order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds
are likely to be obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013
statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can
be obligated, because it may be difficult to complete environmental
and regulatory review as well as any other necessary pre-obligation
activities prior to the statutory obligation deadline of September
30, 2013.
    To demonstrate that this suggested milestone is achievable,
applicants should provide information about the anticipated class of
action, the budget for completing NEPA, including hiring a
consultant if necessary, and a schedule that demonstrates when NEPA
will be complete. The schedule should show how the suggested
milestones described in this section will be complied with, and
include any anticipated coordination with Federal and State
regulatory agencies for permits and approvals. The budget should
demonstrate how costs to complete NEPA factor into the overall cost
to complete construction of the project. The budget and schedule for
completing NEPA should be reasonable and be comparable to a budget
and schedule of a typical project of the same type. The applicant
should provide evidence of support based on input during the NEPA
process from State and local elected officials as well as the
public. Additionally, the applicant should provide environmental
studies or other documents (preferably by way of a Web site link)
that describe in detail known potential project impacts and possible
mitigation for these impacts. The applicant should supply sufficient
documentation for DOT to adequately review the project's NEPA
status.
    Right-of-Way and Design: If the obligation of TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds by an operating administration may be
contingent on completion of right-of-way acquisition and final
design approval, applicants should demonstrate that they reasonably
expect to have right-of-way and design completed, and completion of
any other needed pre-final-obligation approvals by June 30, 2013, in
order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds
are likely to be obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013
statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can
be obligated. If the obligation of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds
for construction or other activities is contingent on the project
completing right-of-way acquisition and design, and additional
approvals contingent on completion of right of way acquisition and
design, applicants should demonstrate they can reasonably expect to
have right-of-way acquisition and design completed by June 1, 2013,
in order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds are likely to be obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can
be obligated Applicants should submit a reasonable schedule of when
right-of-way (if applicable), design, and any other required
approvals are expected to be obtained. Applicants may expect that
DOT may obligate TIGER funds for right-of-way and design completion
only after planning and environmental approvals are obtained.
    Completion of Obligation: Applicants should plan to have all
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds obligated by June 30, 2013, in order
to give DOT comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
likely to be obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013
statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can
be obligated. In some instances, DOT may not obligate for
construction until all planning and environmental approvals are
obtained and right-of-way and final design are complete. If a
project is selected for a TIGER Discretionary Grant and the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funding will be used to complete all of these
activities, DOT may obligate the funding in phases, in accordance
with the laws, regulations, and policies of the operating
administration that is administering the grant.

    Issued On: June 27, 2011.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-16514 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10012-10013]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12952-000]

Emmett Sanders Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

February 19, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12952-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 14, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Emmett Sanders Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Emmett Sanders Lock and Dam 4
Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Arkansas River in Jefferson County, Arkansas. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Emmett Sanders Lock and Dam
4.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12952-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Emmett Sanders

Lock and Dam 4 and operated in a run-of-river mode would
consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and switchyard; (2) four turbine/
generator units with a combined installed capacity of 75 megawatts; (3)
a new 2.6-mile-long above ground 69-kilovolt transmission line
extending from the switchyard to an interconnection point with the
local utility's distribution system; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Emmett Sanders Lock and Dam 4 Project would have
an average annual generation of 230 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3439 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


CONTACT REPORT From: Dave Reeves and Tom Holloway Date of Contact: November 7, 2003 Company/ Agency: Sony Magnetics Products Inc. Of America 4275 W. Main Street Dothan, AL 36305 Telephone Number: ( 334) 793  7655, ext. 1011 Person Contacted: Mark Farmer, Environmental Manager CONTACT SUMMARY: We called Mr. Farmer to follow up on some of the cobalt emissions data and to clarify information concerning emission points at the Sony facility. Mr. Farmer stated that Sony has two different magnetic tape manufacturing processes. The new advanced metal evaporation ( ME) process is conducted in a process area that is part of the main warehouse building. ( On the facility diagram previously provided by Mr. Farmer, this process area is designated as AME <EMAIL_ADDRESS>The ME process area is approximately 75 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 25 feet high. Mr. Farmer also explained that only cobalt metal is used and emitted by the ME process. Sony has three ME machines and is currently only using two of them. The machines are run at a high vacuum and the emissions result from cleaning operations. Most of the cleaning is done between the production runs ( e. g., rolls of magnetic tape). The condensation booth is located within the ME process area and is used for cleaning the condensation hood. Only the condensation booth has an air exhaust, that is directed to a baghouse ( dust collector). With regards to metal cobalt ( Co) emissions ( from the ME process), we asked about the 1,155 pounds they reported for metal Co in their 2000 Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI). Mr. Farmer believed that those metal Co emissions should be reduced by 60 to 70 percent to account for the waste streams identified in recent work conducted with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ( ADEM). He also mentioned that they had done testing and that beyond 20 feet of the process machines they had non detect for Co. Mr. Farmer then retrieved some emissions data from the past few years and stated that for calendar year 2002, they had recently revised their metal Co emissions from 2.34 tons to 1.29 tons. Mr. Farmer volunteered to send us the most recent detailed AME Cobalt Emissions Summary Report@ so we could see how the emissions are tracked month by month.

We then asked about the more conventional magnetic tape manufacturing process at Sony, in which coating ( mix) is applied to a thin film substrate and the solvent is evaporated at the coater and oven. Mr. Farmer explained that the reported cobalt compounds emissions come from the coating mix, which is cobalt doped iron oxide. According to Mr. Farmer, Co is only 2 to 3 weight percent of the mix, so the amount of cobalt in the reported 250 pounds of Co compounds is actually only 5 to 7 pounds. Mr. Farmer further explained that there are four coating lines for the conventional process, two lines in P 1 Plant and two lines in P 2 Plant ( as designated on the  2

facility diagram). Mr. Farmer had previously estimated that 80 percent of the ( fugitive) Co compound emissions come from the mix areas which are located at the southern end of both the P 1 and P 2 Plants. The other 20 percent had been identified as miscellaneous fugitives.@ According to Mr. Farmer, the dimensions of the exhaust ducts from both P 1 and P 2 Plants are 4 foot x 4 foot, and the release point for both ducts is 50 feet high. The average flowrates for the P 1 and P 2 Plant ducts are 130,000 cfm and 150,000 cfm, respectively. Mr. Farmer stated that the reported 250 pounds of Co compounds emissions are an engineering estimate and that the emissions should be split evenly between the P 1 and P 2 Plants.

Mr. Farmer also commented that Sony

s AME production slowed down at the beginning of the calendar year, but in recent months has increased slightly, so the resulting air emissions reflect these changes in the monthly emissions report he will be providing.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67618-67620]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0902]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Richardson Ash Scattering by Fireworks, San
Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of San Francisco Bay 1,500 feet off Yellow Bluff,
Sausalito, CA during a fireworks display in support of the Richardson
Ash Scattering. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of
participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the
pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission from the Captain of the Port or her designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 3:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. on November
6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0902 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0902 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Ensign Liz Ellerson, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule, as it would be impracticable because the
event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed.
Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks
display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels
transiting the

event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest
to have these regulations in effect during the event.

Basis and Purpose

    The Richardson Ash Scattering by Fireworks is scheduled to take
place on November 6, 2010, on the navigable waters of San Francisco
Bay, 1500 feet off Yellow Bluff, Sausalito, CA. The fireworks display
is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to
establish a temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the
fireworks launch site during loading of the pyrotechnics, and during
the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch site is
necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the
hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barges. The
Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the
fireworks display.

Discussion of Rule

    During the set up of the fireworks and until the start of the
fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable
waters around the fireworks loading site within a radius of 100 feet.
The loading of the pyrotechnics onto the boat is scheduled to commence
at 4 p.m. on November 6, 2010 and last approximately thirty minutes at
the Sausalito Ferry docks in Sausalito, CA. From 6:15 p.m. until 7
p.m., the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase
in size to encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks site
within a radius of 400 feet.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks site while the fireworks
are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except
for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These
regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the
immediate vicinity of the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of
participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the
area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing
have ample space outside of the effected portion of the areas off
Sausalito, CA to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing, disestablishing, or
changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-368 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-368  Safety zone; Richardson Ash Scattering by Fireworks,
San Francisco, CA

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
waters of San Francisco Bay 1500 feet off Yellow Bluff, Sausalito, CA.
The fireworks launch site will be located in position 37[deg]50'9'' N,
122[deg]27'59'' W (NAD 83). From 3:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. on November 6,
2010, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around
the fireworks site within a radius of 100 feet. From 6:15 p.m. until 7
p.m. on November 6, 2010, the area to which the temporary safety zone
applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around
the fireworks site within a radius of 400 feet.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23
of this title, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 3:30 p.m.
through 7 p.m. on November 6, 2010.

    Dated: October 22, 2010.
C.L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2010-27703 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P