<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<TITLE>Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><LINK
href="Transportation-Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas_files/PCB.css"
type=text/css rel=stylesheet>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>

Federal Highway Administration

Transportation/Air Quality
Issues in Rural Areas

Final Report
April 2003

Prepared by
Dye Management Group, Inc.
500 108th Avenue NE,
      Suite 1700
Bellevue, WA 98004

Federal Highway Administration

Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Background
B.
  Approach
C.
  Report
  Structure
II. Summary
of Findings
III. Identification
of Isolated Rural Areas
IV. Survey
Results

A. Carbon
  Monoxide
B. Ozone
C.
  Particulate
  Matter-10

Appendix
A: Survey A-1

Federal Highway Administration

Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas

I. Introduction

Although air quality has been mainly an urban concern, it is beginning to
become an issue that rural areas will also have to manage. Several rural
counties have exceeded the national standard for one or more air pollutants. The
purpose of this study is to increase understanding of how many rural areas are
facing this problem and to identify the main causes for their exceeding air
quality standards. The study also focuses on transportation's contribution to
the air quality problems in rural areas and how these areas are meeting certain
Clean Air Act requirements related to motor vehicle emission sources. In order
to build this understanding, the research identified rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas: how many are there, where are they, and are they isolated
rural areas or donut areas? (These two different types of areas are defined in
Section III.) Once the delineation of areas was accomplished, the study's
in-depth evaluation of air quality and transportation conformity issues was
restricted to only isolated rural areas.

The research reported in this paper accomplished the following:

Determined if transportation is generating the pollutants in each isolated
  rural area or if another source is primarily responsible for the pollutant.

Identified what analysis rural areas have conducted to meet the Clean Air
  Act requirements for transportation conformity and the control measures they
  have undertaken to address transportation-related sources of pollutants.

Assessed the resources and planning capabilities of isolated rural areas
  to address the issue of conformity between transportation plans for their
  areas and State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

Back
to Table of Contents

A. Background

The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act are intended to integrate
transportation and air quality planning in areas that are designated by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as nonattainment or maintenance.1
The transportation conformity process establishes a connection between
transportation planning and the emissions levels for transportation sources that
are established in the SIP. These emissions levels (or "budgets") in the SIP
represent the maximum amount of emissions that can be generated from on-road
transportation sources (e.g., cars, trucks, public transit) and still allow the
area to attain or maintain the air quality standards. Under the CAA,
nonattainment and maintenance areas must demonstrate through the conformity
process that emissions projected from their transportation investments,
strategies, and programs will be at or below the emissions budgets in the SIP.
In order to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, federal,
state, and local governments must take action. These actions, or control
measures, are typically identified in the SIP. Depending on the classification
and severity of the air quality problem, some areas may find that they need to
reduce emissions from transportation sources. One option for reducing emissions
for on-road mobile sources is to limit vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is the
sum of distances traveled by all motor vehicles in a specified region. In order
to address VMT, some states have included Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
as strategies that are specifically identified and committed to in the SIP. TCMs
are strategies that are listed in Section 108 of the Clean Air Act and include
projects such as public transit and ride-share programs. Areas might also invest
in other technology-based strategies that will reduce transportation-related
emissions such as inspection and maintenance and fuels programs.

1 A nonattainment area is a region that does not
meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the
pollutant. The area must take specified actions within a certain time frame to
reduce emissions and attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A maintenance area is a region previously designated as nonattainment, and
subsequently redesignated to attainment.

Back
to Table of Contents

B. Approach

To meet the objectives of this study, research was conducted to determine the
classification of areas. A comprehensive survey was designed, administered, and
analyzed. The entire process was overseen by officials from the FHWA and EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ).

Oversight

Study oversight was provided by officials from the FHWA and EPA-OTAQ. The
  following officials were involved in the study oversight:

Bob Gorman, FHWA

Dee Spann, FHWA

Cecilia Ho, FHWA

Angela Spickard, EPA-OTAQ

The oversight group provided input and validated the study at key points,
  including study inception, survey design, and presentation of findings.

Research and Analysis

August 2001 data on rural nonattainment and maintenance areas was compiled
  from the EPA Greenbook website (http://epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/). The EPA
  Greenbook data included information on all nonattainment and maintenance areas
  in the United States for six pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
  dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. The data also
  distinguished between nonattainment and maintenance areas that are part of a
  Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and those that are not. In this
  research, the three transportation-related pollutants examined were carbon
  monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter-10 (PM-10). Although nitrogen dioxide
  is also a pollutant emitted from transportation sources, there are no isolated
  rural areas violating the nitrogen dioxide air quality standard. A list of
  nonattainment and maintenance isolated rural areas was compiled.

In order to differentiate between the isolated rural areas and the donut
  areas, many sources of information were used. (The two types of rural areas
  are defined in Section II.) The Association of Metropolitan Planning
  Organizations (AMPO) was consulted for determining which geographic areas MPOs
  covered. Organizational websites (where available) were used to determine the
  exact coverage area of the MPO; an organization without a website was
  contacted by phone. The MPO areas were mapped out, as were the nonattainment
  and maintenance areas, to determine if the area was a donut or an isolated
  rural area. The regional EPA offices were contacted by phone to verify the
  list of isolated rural nonattainment/maintenance areas and the donut areas.
  The Code of Federal Regulations was consulted to determine the current air
  quality classification of the area and to incorporate any updates since the
  Greenbook data was last updated in August 2001. The analysis and survey
  conducted was based on designations as of mid January 2002.

Survey

In conjunction with the EPA and the FHWA, a survey was developed to
  determine how isolated rural areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance
  for one or more national ambient air quality standards are addressing air
  quality and transportation conformity requirements. The survey specifically
  addresses Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and PM-10 isolated rural areas. The main
  questions addressed in the survey are:

Why are these isolated rural areas in nonattainment or maintenance
    (i.e., what are the main sources of their air quality problems)?

How are these air quality problems being addressed by the different
    agencies involved?

How are these areas meeting the transportation conformity requirements?

The survey was e-mailed to the state department of transportation and state
  air quality agency for each area. In addition, regional FHWA and regional EPA
  offices were also e-mailed a survey. The consultant team answered survey
  respondents' questions and encouraged those who had not completed a survey to
  do so.

Interviews

One jurisdiction from each pollutant nonattainment or maintenance area --
  Presque Isle, Maine; Fairbanks, Alaska; and Greenbrier County, West Virginia
  -- was selected for a follow-up interview. These focused discussions were used
  to clarify how the area has used the conformity process and to identify the
  practical issues associated with different aspects of the process. The
  interviews confirmed the conclusions the study team reached from the survey
  data.

Back
to Table of Contents

C. Report Structure

This report is organized into the following sections:

II. Summary
  of Findings. This section presents the general findings from the
  surveys collected for all the isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance
  areas that responded.

III. Identification
  of Isolated Rural Areas. This section identifies which rural
  areas are isolated and which areas are donut areas.

IV. Survey
  Results. This section presents a detailed summary of the survey
  responses for isolated rural areas organized by pollutant.

V. Appendix
  A: Survey. This appendix contains the text of the survey
  administered by Dye Management Group, Inc. in June 2002.

Back
to Table of Contents

II. Summary of Findings

The following summarizes the major findings of a study that assessed the
process and techniques that isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas
have used to address the requirements of the conformity process. More details
and definitions can be found in the body of this report.

There are few isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance areas
  compared to the total nonattainment or maintenance areas for each
  pollutant.

Isolated rural nonattainment or maintenance areas represent a small
  percentage of the total nonattainment or maintenance areas, as shown in
  Exhibit II-1.

Exhibit II-1: Number of Isolated Rural Nonattainment
or
    Maintenance Areas Relative to
Total Nonattainment or Maintenance Areas in
    2001

      Pollutant
      Isolated Rural Areas
      Total areas
      Percent Isolated Rural

      Carbon Monoxide
      3
      121
      2

      Ozone
      31
      420
      7

      PM-10
      37
      106
      35

The exhibit reinforces a predominant view that air quality is primarily an
  urban concern. However, the portion of PM-10 areas that are isolated rural
  areas is significant.

In only two cases were more than 5 percent of the PM-10 emissions
  attributed to on-road mobile sources.

Survey results indicated that in most of the isolated rural areas the PM-10
  problem in an area are attributable to sources other than on-road mobile
  sources such as point source (e.g., factories or power plants). Consequently,
  transportation-related strategies did not really help these areas to attain
  the PM-10 standard.

Experience with PM-10 problems in other areas, confirmed through the survey
  and telephone follow up with the isolated rural areas, indicates that more
  frequent street sweeping, changing deicing materials or other fugitive dust
  control measures can be effective in reducing PM-10 emissions. In the case of
  Presque Isle, Maine, (a PM-10 nonattainment isolated rural area) switching
  from a native sanding material to calcium chloride was very effective in
  reducing PM-10 emissions. However, the cost of using the chemical in place of
  the sand had prevented the local maintenance crews from switching for many
  years.

The isolated rural areas have limited staff resources to understand
  and address the implications of nonattainment status.

In general the isolated rural areas do not have professional air quality
  and transportation planning staff. Local jurisdictions' responsibilities are
  typically addressed through their public works department or county engineer
  depending upon their organizational structure. They also rely on the expertise
  of State Department of Transportation staff in addressing conformity
  issues.

There is typically limited local data and planning information to
  perform conformity analysis.

The survey results indicate that in those few cases where analysis is
  performed, traffic data and growth estimates are derived from traffic counts
  and other traffic monitoring data reporting such as HPMS. Few areas indicated
  that they collected local data.

Interagency consultation is helpful when needed, but most survey
  respondents have never held a meeting of all federal, state, and local
  agencies because they have not had transportation projects, and therefore,
  have not needed to determine conformity.

Ten of the 18 survey respondents stated that there had never been a meeting
  among all agencies for the area, while two respondents explained that they
  have not needed consultation because the area has had no new projects. Three
  respondents did not provide any information about consultation for their
  isolated rural area.

The three respondents that endorsed interagency consultation stated that
  the process has been helpful in facilitating cross-functionality training and
  resolving conformity issues. According to the Chief of EPA Region 4's Air
  Planning Branch, interagency consultation has been very effective in Edmonson
  County, Kentucky:

Effective interagency consultation was the key to resolving this
    issue and could have been used as the means to prevent any delay from
    occurring. Because of this area's limited experience with conformity and the
    nature of how transportation conformity is implemented in isolated rural
    areas (i.e., until projects are seriously contemplated there is no need to
    do conformity analysis), planning parties may not have allowed time for any
    resolution to potential issues, and may not have effectively consulted with
    parties who could work to resolve issues until there was no choice but for
    delay. In this case, it was not until the area ran the conformity analysis
    and was not able to demonstrate conformity to a budget developed with the
    Mobile 4.1 emissions model that the area realized that it would be
    beneficial for them to have mobile emissions budgets developed with the new
    Mobile 5 emissions model. The efforts for developing new emissions budgets
    is not extremely burdensome but does require planning, review and approval
    on the part of various agencies that may not have been alerted to this
    situation until it was too late.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and air quality partners in
    the Edmonson County have gained a lot from their interagency coordination
    and communicate on at least a monthly basis on this area and other areas in
    Kentucky, even though the area has successfully demonstrated conformity. The
    partners are taking a more proactive approach and discuss any upcoming
    projects that may be considered for Edmonson County. In fact, this
    interagency consultation discussion prevented KYTC (the Kentucky
    Transportation Cabinet) from performing conformity analysis unnecessarily
    for Edmonson County in the beginning of 2002. KYTC was under the impression
    that conformity determinations for isolated rural areas have a three year
    expiration just as in metropolitan areas. When this topic was discussed on
    the monthly interagency consultation call, Kentucky transportation and air
    quality partners were able to discuss and resolve this issue prior to KYTC
    beginning work for this conformity determination.

In this area, interagency consultation has been very beneficial.
    We all have a better understanding of the role of each consultation partner
    with regard to conformity. The air quality agencies are gaining more
    knowledge of the transportation planning process, and the transportation
    agencies are gaining more knowledge of the air quality process.

Most areas reported no new Federal non-exempt transportation
  projects in the past five years.
Consistent with their rural
  nature, 11 areas indicated no regionally significant projects. Only three
  survey respondents reported non-exempt transportation projects requiring
  conformity analysis over the past five years.2
  Each of the three areas only had one such project.

Two areas used an analysis period shorter than the required
  analysis period in their conformity determination.
Although
  conformity analysis requires a 20-year analysis period, two areas reported a
  shorter timeframe. One area reported analysis 10 years into the future;
  another reported analysis 15 years into the future.

2 The remaining four survey respondents did not
answer the survey question related to non-exempt transportation projects. While
these could be areas that did not have non-exempt projects, it is possible that
the survey respondent did not know the answer to the question.

Back
to Table of Contents

III. Identification of Isolated Rural Areas

Federal regulations separate rural areas into two types: isolated rural areas
and donut areas. For purposes of this survey, the distinction between an
isolated rural area and a "donut" area is as follows. An isolated rural area is
an area that is not part of the emissions analysis of any Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) transportation plan or transportation improvement program
(TIP). A "donut" area, on the other hand, is an area that is inside a
non-attainment or maintenance area boundary, but is outside the metropolitan
planning boundary (40CFR93.109(g)).

The following tables show the rural areas currently (March 2003) in
non-attainment status.

Exhibit III-1: Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment or Maintenance
  Rural Areas
(March 2003)

    State
    EPA Region
    Isolated Rural Areas
    Donut Areas

    Alaska
    10
    Fairbanks

    Oregon

    Grants Pass
Klamath Falls

Exhibit III-2: Ozone Nonattainment or Maintenance Rural Areas
  (March 2003)

    State
    EPA Region
    Isolated Rural Areas
    Donut Areas

    Connecticut
    1
    Windam County (Greater Connecticut Area)

    Maine
    1
    Hancock & Waldo Counties
    Cumberland County (Greater Portland Area)

    Knox & Lincoln Counties

    New Hampshire
    1
    Cheshire County

    New York
    2
    Essex County
Jefferson County
    Montgomery and Greene Counties (Albany-Schenectady-Troy
    Area)

    Maryland
    3
    Kent & Queen Anne's Counties
    Calvert and Charles Counties (Washington, DC-MD-VA)

    Virginia
    3
    White Top Mountain (Smith County)

    Delaware
    3
    Sussex County

    Pennsylvania
    3
    Crawford County
Franklin County
Juanita
      County
Lawrence County
Northumberland County
Schuylkill
      County
Snyder County
Susquehanna County
Warren County
Wayne
      County

    Virginia
    3
    White Top Mountain (Smith County)

    West Virginia
    3
    Greenbrier County

    Georgia
    4

    Coweta, Forsyth and Paulding Counties (Atlanta Area)

    Kentucky
    4
    Edmonson County
    Portion of Hancock County (Owensboro area)

    Paducah (Livingston and Marshall Counties)
    Scott County (Lexington Area)

    South Carolina
    4
    Cherokee County

    Tennessee
    4

    Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties
      (Nashville area)

    Michigan
    5
    Allegan County

    Muskegon

    Ohio
    5
    Clinton County
    Ashtabula and Portaqe Counties (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
    area)

    Columbiana County

    Preble County

    Delaware and Licking Counties (Columbus area)

    Greene and Miami Counties (Dayton-Springfield area)

    Stark County (Canton area)

    Louisiana
    6
    Grant Parish
Lafourche Parish
St. James Parish
St.
      Mary Parish

Exhibit III-3: PM-10 Nonattainment or Maintenance Rural Areas
  (2003)

    State
    EPA Region
    Isolated Rural Areas
    Donut Areas

    Maine
    1
    Presque Isle (Aroostook County)

    Illinois
    5
    Oglesby (La Salle County)

    Indiana
    5
    Vermillion County

    New Mexico
    6

    Anthony (Dona Ana County)

    Colorado
    8
    Telluride (San Miquel County)
Pagosa Springs (Archuleta
      County)
Canon City (Fremont County)
Aspen (Pitkin County)
Lamar
      (Prowers County)
Steamboat Springs (Routt County)

    Montana
    8
    Columbia Falls (Flathead County)
Whitefish and vicinity
      (Flathead County)
Kalispell (Flathead County)
Polson (Lake
      County)
Libby (Lincoln County)
Lame Deer (Rosebud
      County)
Thompson Falls and vicinity (Sanders County)
Ronan area
      (Lake County)
Butte (Silver Bow County)
    Ronan

    Wyoming
    8
    Sheridan County

    Arizona
    9
    Douglas (Coachise County)
Paul Spur (Coachise
      County)
Hayden/Miami (Gila and Pinal Counties)
Payson (Gila
      County)
Mohave County
Nogales (Santa Crus County)

    California
    9
    Mammoth Lake (Mono County)
Owens Valley (Inyo
      County)
Mono Basin (Mono County)

    Alaska
    10
    Juneau

    Idaho
    10
    Sandpoint (Bonner County)
Shoshone County (excluding
      Pinehurst)

Pinehurst (Shoshone County)

    Oregon
    10
    Lake County
Grants Pass (Josephine County)
LaGrande
      (Union County)
Klamath County (Klamath Falls area)

    Washington
    10
    Wallula (Walla Walla County)

The study team surveyed a sample of the isolated rural areas identified in
the exhibit.

IV. Survey Results

The survey was administered to a sample of the carbon monoxide, ozone, or
PM-10 nonattainment or maintenance isolated rural areas. The survey was sent to
41 isolated rural areas: 2 carbon monoxide nonattainment or maintenance areas, 6
ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas, and 34 PM-10 nonattainment areas.
(Grant's Pass, Oregon is both a carbon monoxide maintenance area and a
particulate matter nonattainment area.) For each area, the survey was sent to
the corresponding:

State department of transportation (DOT).

State and/or local air quality agency.

FHWA Division and EPA Regional offices.

A total of 18 surveys were completed, for an overall response rate of 43
percent. However, response rates differed according to pollutant: 100 percent
for ozone; 50 percent for carbon monoxide; and 32 percent for particulate
matter-10. Below are general conclusions from all surveys, as well as
conclusions drawn for each of the pollutants.

Back
to Table of Contents

A. Carbon Monoxide

Only one of the two carbon monoxide maintenance or nonattainment areas
responded to the survey, as shown in Exhibit IV-1.

Exhibit IV-1: Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment and Maintenance
  Isolated Rural Areas

    State
    County
    Area Name
    Status
    Class
    EPA Region
    Completed Survey

    Alaska
    Fairbanks Ed
    Fairbanks
    Nonattainment
    Serious
    10
    No

    Oregon
    Josephine
    Grants Pass
    Maintenance
    N/A
    10
    Yes

Over 50 percent of Grants Pass's carbon monoxide emissions is caused by
on-road mobile sources. VMT is projected to grow 0.8 percent per year between
1993 and 2015, as determined by a model developed in collaboration between the
Rogue Valley Council of Governments and the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Grants Pass has a maintenance SIP, which contains one transportation control
measure: wintertime oxygenated fuel. The survey respondents also indicated that
the one federal action that has helped the area maintain air quality standards
is improved vehicle emissions standards on new cars.

Grants Pass used the less than 1990 test and the build/no-build test in its
last conformity determination. For years beyond the timeframe of the SIP, Grants
Pass uses the budget test and demonstration using air quality modeling. It is
not clear from the survey responses why Grants Pass appears to have used both
the budget test and an air quality modeling demonstration for conformity in
years past the SIP.

Grants Pass, like all Oregon local jurisdictions, is required to develop a
transportation system plan (TSP) and receives financial support to do so. This
requirement has likely led to an improved capacity to handle planning efforts
such as the conformity process.

While the sample size for carbon monoxide nonattainment and maintenance areas
is small, there may be opportunity for Fairbanks to learn from Grants Pass.
Since both areas are in EPA Region 10, EPA officials could coordinate a meeting
between officials in both areas.

Comments on the Process

A survey respondent from the FHWA Division office made the following
  comment:

The FHWA Division must rely heavily on the Oregon DEQ and USEPA
    for information on how and when areas are designated as non-attainment or
    maintenance areas and how conformity needs to be addressed in each. If new
    guidance were developed, the most useful would be something that could make
    it easier to track the status of each specific area. Often when changes in
    requirements are published in the Federal Register, it can be difficult and
    time consuming to determine which areas are impacted and the actions that
    may be needed.

Back
to Table of Contents

B. Ozone

All six isolated rural areas in nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, in
the survey sample, completed the survey. The areas are listed in Exhibit
IV-2.

Exhibit IV-2: 2002 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance
  Isolated Rural Areas

    State
    County
    Area Name
    Status
    Class
    EPA Region
    Completed Survey

    Delaware
    Sussex
    Sussex County
    Nonattainment
    Marginal
    3
    Yes

    Kentucky
    Edmonson
    Edmonson County
    Maintenance
    N/A
    4
    Yes

    Livingston and Marshall
    Paducah
    Maintenance
    N/A
    4
    Yes

    New York
    Essex
    Essex County
    Nonattainment
    Marginal
    2
    Yes

    Virginia
    Smyth
    White Top Mountain
    Nonattainment
    Marginal
    3
    Yes

    West Virginia
    Greenbrier
    Greenbrier County
    Nonattainment
    N/A
    3
    Yes

Four ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas have SIPs; two areas (White Top
Mountain and Sussex County) do not. For emissions dealing with ozone, areas list
precursors: nitrogen oxides (NOx) and/or hydrocarbons (VOC). On-road mobile
sources of NOx ranged from 0 percent for White Top Mountain to 87 percent for
Greenbrier County. On-road mobile sources of VOC ranged from 0 percent for White
Top Mountain to 53 percent for Greenbrier County. Exhibit IV-3 shows the full
results of the survey.

Exhibit IV-3: Percentage of Emissions from On-road Mobile
  Sources

    Area Name
    NOx
    VOC

    Sussex County
    21%
    22%

    Edmonson County
    63%
    36%

    Paducah, Kentucky
    33%
    3%

    Essex County
    N/A
    N/A

    White Top Mountain
    0%
    0%

    Greenbrier County
    87%
    53%

    Notes:
    N/A = not reported

Sussex County,
      White Top Mountain, and Greenbrier County use 1990 data. Paducah and
      Edmonson County use 2002 data.

Using historical data from the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System
(HPMS), VMT growth in Edmonson County is determined to be 2.28 percent annually
from 2000 to 2020. HPMS data was also used to determine the annual increase of
VMT in Paducah, which is 2.05 percent for Marshall County and 2.11 percent for
Livingston County. None of the other areas reported VMT information, and none of
the four areas with a SIP employ transportation control measures. However,
several areas listed federal actions that have helped the area attain or
maintain the air quality standards. Exhibit IV?4 lists those effective federal
measures cited by the areas.

Exhibit IV-4: Effective Federal Measures for Attaining or
  Maintaining Air Quality Standards

    Area Name
    Measures Cited

    Sussex County
    None.

    Edmonson County
    All measures, including federal vehicle emission
      controls and fleet turnover.

    Paducah
    Fleet turnover, non-road rules, the national low
      emission vehicle program (NLEV), and heavy duty diesel program.

    Essex County
    Section 126 rule for NOx transport.

    White Top Mountain
    None.

    Greenbrier County
    Federal Motor Vehicle Control.Program (FMVCP),
      Heavy Duty Diesel Rule, and small spark ignition gasoline
  engines.

For those areas with SIPs, Exhibit IV-5 lists conformity tests used both in
their conformity determination and in the years beyond the timeframe of the SIP.
(Only two areas provided information.)

Exhibit IV-5: Conformity Tests

    Area
    Last Determination
    Determinations in Years Beyond Timeframe of SIP

    Budget test
    Less than 1990 test
    Build/no build test
    No-greater-than 1990 test
    Budget test
    Less than 1990 test
    Build/no build test
    No-greater-than 1990 test
    Demonstration using air quality modeling

    Edmonson County
    X

    X

    Paducah
    X

    X

    Total Number
    2

    2

Both Edmonson County and Paducah reported having non-exempt transportation
projects in the past five years. Edmonson determined conformity for its project
in 1999. Paducah failed in 1998 to determine conformity due to an increase in
VMT, but eventually the area was able to make a conformity determination in
Spring 2002 after revising its SIP to incorporate new data.

Comments on the Process
A state transportation engineer commented on
  the survey: "A recent ruling that an isolated rural area need only do
  conformity when adding a new project will help." The same engineer noted that
  "It doesn't seem appropriate to be spending so many resources and creating
  local headaches over adding a minor amount of VMT when the mobile contribution
  to pollution in the area is so small anyway. For most isolated rural areas,
  the primary contribution is likely coming from outside the area, so why not
  focus attention and resources on the real problem?"

Back
to Table of Contents

C. Particulate Matter-10

Only 11 of the 34 PM-10 nonattainment and maintenance areas, in the survey
sample, completed the survey, as shown in Exhibit IV-6.

Exhibit IV-6: 2002 PM-10 Isolated Rural Nonattainment and
  Maintenance Areas

    State
    County
    Area Name
    Status
    Class
    EPA Region
    Completed Survey

    Maine
    Aroostook
    Presque Isle
    Maintenance
    N/A
    1
    Yes

    Colorado
    San Miguel
    Telluride
    Maintenance
    N/A
    8
    No

    Archuleta
    Pagosa Springs
    Maintenance
    N/A
    8
    No

    Fremont
    Canon City
    Maintenance
    N/A
    8
    No

    Pitkin
    Aspen
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Prowers
    Lamar
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Routt
    Steamboat Springs
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Montana
    Flathead
    Columbia Falls
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Flathead
    Flathead County; Whitefish and vicinity
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Flathead
    Kalispell
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Lake
    Polson
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Lincoln
    Libby
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Rosebud
    Lame Deer
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Sanders
    Sanders County (part); Thompson Falls and
    vicinity
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Silver Bow
    Butte
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    No

    Wyoming
    Sheridan
    Sheridan
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    8
    Yes

    Arizona
    Cochise
    Douglas
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Cochise
    Paul Spur
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Gila
    Hayden/Miami
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Gila
    Payson
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Mohave
    Mohave County
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Pinal
    Hayden/Miami
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    Santa Cruz
    Nogales
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    No

    California
    Mono
    Mammoth Lake
    Maintenance
    N/A
    9
    Yes

    Inyo
    Owens Valley
    Nonattainment
    Serious
    9
    Yes

    Inyo
    Searless Valley
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    Yes

    Mono
    Mono Basin
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    9
    Yes

    Alaska
    Juneau Ed
    Juneau
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    No

    Idaho
    Bonner
    Sandpoint
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    Yes

    Shoshone
    Pinehurst
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    Yes

    Oregon
    Lake
    Lake County
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    Yes

    Josephine
    Grants Pass
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    Yes

    Union
    LaGrande
    Nonattainment
    Moderate
    10
    Yes

    Washington
    Walla Walla
    Wallula
    Nonattainment
    Serious
    10
    No

All 11 PM-10 nonattainment or maintenance areas reported having a SIP. The
contribution of emissions from on-road mobile sources to the areas' air quality
problem varied and was difficult to determine in some areas. For Presque Isle,
Maine, on-road mobile-sources, including road dust, was estimated to be 61% of
the area's total PM inventory in 1994; more recent estimates show that the
percentage of direct emissions only is estimated at 7.3 percent. For Mammoth
Lakes, direct emissions from transportation sources has been determined to be
less than 1%, however, emissions from resuspended road dirt and cinders is
estimated to be 56.1% of the areas' emissions inventory. Unfortunately, survey
information did not indicate what percentage of the resuspended road dirt was
from roads versus what percentage is from cinders. Exhibit IV-7 illustrates the
percentage of on-road mobile emissions by area.

Exhibit IV-7: Percentage of Emissions from On-road Mobile
  Sources

    Area Name
    Year of Inventory
    PM-10

    Presque Isle (Maine)
    1994
    61*

    Sheridan (Wyoming)
    1988
    N/A

    Mammoth Lake (California)
    1988
    Less than 1

    Owens Valley (California)
    1995
    Less than 1

    Searless Valley (California)
    N/A
    Less than 1

    Mono Basin (California)
    N/A
    Less than 1

    Sandpoint (Idaho)
    1994
    3

    Pinehurst (Idaho)
    1988
    2

    Lake County (Oregon)
    N/A
    N/A

    Grants Pass (Oregon)
    1986
    10

    LaGrande (Oregon)
    1986
    5

    Notes:
    N/A = not available

An interview with Presque Isle revealed problems with the 1994 measurement,
which included road sand with on-road mobile sources. The percentage of direct
emissions from on-road mobile sources is 7.3 percent.

However, several areas listed TCMs, shown in Exhibit IV-8.

Exhibit IV-8: Transportation Control
  Measures

    Area Name
    TCM Cited

    Presque Isle (Maine)
    Removing de-icing and anti-icing materials as
      soon as possible from roads.

    Sheridan (Wyoming)
    Limiting sand and gravel usage and removing them
      as soon as possible from a road after snow.

    Mammoth Lake (California)
    Restricting parking, increasing transit
      ridership, and reducing vehicle traffic.

    Owens Valley (California)
    None.

    Searless Valley (California)
    None.

    Mono Basin (California)
    None.

    Sandpoint (Idaho)
    Aggressive street sweeping program and anti skid
      material specs.

    Pinehurst (Idaho)
    None.

    Lake County (Oregon)
    Paving gravel roads.

    Grants Pass (Oregon)
    None.

    LaGrande (Oregon)
    Controlling fugitive dust (winter road sanding,
      paving gravel streets, etc.).

Interestingly, the most frequently listed TCMs do not fit the commonly used
definition of TCM, which includes actions to adjust traffic patterns or reduce
vehicle use. Only three of the 11 areas that responded to the survey noted
effective federal measures relating to VMT and tailpipe emissions, as reflected
in Exhibit IV-9.

Exhibit IV-9: Effective Federal Measures for Attaining or

Maintaining Air Quality Standards

    Area Name
    Measures Cited

    Presque Isle (Maine)
    None.

    Sheridan (Wyoming)
    None.

    Mammoth Lake (California)
    VMT cap, phase out of non-certified wood stoves
      and fireplaces, mandatory wood burning curtailment.

    Owens Valley (California)
    N/A

    Searless Valley (California)
    N/A

    Mono Basin (California)
    N/A

    Sandpoint (Idaho)
    Tier II, CAFE standards, OBD etc. -- improving
      fuel economy and emission rates.

    Pinehurst (Idaho)
    Tier II, CAFE standards, OBD etc. -- improving
      fuel economy and emission rates.

    Lake County (Oregon)
    CMAQ funds used to pave gravel roads (to reduce
      transportation-related fugitive dust).

    Grants Pass (Oregon)
    N/A

    LaGrande (Oregon)
    Reducing transportation-related fugitive dust by
      paving gravel roads.

    Notes:
    N/A = not available

Only three PM-10 nonattainment areas reported having ever made a conformity
determination, and only one of these areas has done so within the last five
years. All three cited the build/no build test in their latest determination,
and two of the three noted the build/no build test in years beyond the timeframe
of their SIP. Exhibit IV-10 summarizes the responses.

Exhibit IV-10: Conformity Tests

    Area
    Last Determination
    Conformity in YearsBeyond Timeframe of SIP

    Budget test
    Less than 1990 test
    Build/no build test
    No-greater-than 1990 test
    Budget test
    Less than 1990 test
    Build/no build test
    No-greater-than 1990 test
    Demonstration using air quality modeling

    Sandpoint (Idaho)

    X

    X

    Pinehurst (Idaho)

    X

    X

    Grants Pass (Oregon)

    X
    X

    X

    Total Number

    1
    3

    2

    1

Only Sandpoint reported having a non-exempt transportation project in the
past five years. It determined conformity for its project in 2000.

Comments on the Process

According to a Division FHWA Transportation Engineer who completed the
  survey:

Rural areas by their very nature (small, sparsely populated,
    relatively low traffic volumes and densities, and infrequent capacity
    expansion projects) should have minimal transportation related air quality
    problems. To the extent that the above generalization is accurate, it begs
    the question of why a regional level analysis is currently expected for such
    areas. Perhaps consideration should be given to evaluating, and as
    necessary, analyzing such areas at the project level, only. Since there is
    no PM-10 modeling process, this would effectively limit the analysis to
  CO.

According to a state environmental agency transportation specialist who
  completed the survey:

One of the biggest holes in modeling transportation emissions
    for conformity purposes is VMT and speeds. Transportation and Air Quality
    agencies often must rely on minimal or spotty data to base speed and VMT
    assumptions. As an example, the statewide transportation emissions inventory
    is based on VMT extrapolated from Federal Highways Statistics. The
    conformity process and the quality of associated air quality analysis would
    be vastly improved with consistent and reliable VMT and speed data. Rural
    areas would greatly benefit if FHWA could expand the monitoring done for the
    Federal Highways Statistics.

Back
to Table of Contents

Appendix A: Survey

This appendix contains a copy of the survey used to collect the
data for this report.

FHWA Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas

Background

FHWA is interested in assessing how isolated rural areas that have been
designated non-attainment or maintenance for one or more air quality standards
are addressing their transportation conformity related issues. FHWA has assigned
Dye Management Group, Inc. the task of identifying and describing current
practices. FHWA and EPA are considering developing additional guidance on how to
conduct conformity determinations in these areas, so your responses are
important to us. As part of this effort, we are seeking your collaboration to
participate in a survey.
The three main questions we hope to answer through
this survey are:

Why are these isolated rural areas in non-attainment or maintenance (i.e.,
  what are the main sources contributing to their air quality problems)?

Who is involved in the transportation planning and conformity processes
  for these isolated rural areas and what are each agency's roles?

How are these air quality problems being addressed by the different
  agencies involved?

The attached questionnaire, a product of the substantial collaboration from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), was designed to gather information on the identified issues of interest.
For each isolated rural area a questionnaire will be sent to the corresponding
state department of transportation (DOT), the state and/or local air agency, the
Division FHWA and Regional EPA offices, and any other applicable state or local
agency.

Rural Areas Defined

By definition, an isolated rural non-attainment or maintenance area is not
part of, or contiguous to, a metropolitan area having a population of 50,000 or
more. In other words, if an area is inside a non-attainment or maintenance area
boundary, but is outside of the metropolitan planning boundary, then it is
considered a "donut area," not an isolated rural area (see 40 CFR 93.109(g)). An
isolated rural area's transportation projects are not part of the emissions
analysis of any MPO's transportation plan or TIP (see 40 CFR 93.109(g)).
Isolated rural areas are not required under federal regulation to establish a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or to develop transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs (TIP) as a result of their population
size.

FHWA Transportation/Air Quality in Rural
Areas
Questionnaire

Name: _______________________________________________________________

Position: _____________________________________________________________

Organization: _________________________________________________________

Telephone: __________________
E-mail:___________________________________

General

[Area Name] has been designated as a [nonattainment area or maintenance
  area] for [ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter-10].

Please verify that the designation(s) and pollutant(s) listed above for
  this area is/are correct. If not accurate please correct as appropriate.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

State Implementation Plan and Air Quality

Does this area have a SIP? ______Yes ______ No

If this area has a SIP, what control measures in the SIP help the area
    show attainment?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

If this area has a SIP, what are the emissions inventories for each
    source sector (e.g., on-road mobile, stationary, etc.) listed in the
    isolated rural area's SIP? Please answer this question separately for each
    pollutant or each precursor of each pollutant for which an area is
    designated. For your response, please choose the inventory year closest to
    2002 and indicate the units for each pollutant / precursor (e.g., tons per
    day, tons per year). Or, if available, copy and attach a table listing of
    the emissions inventory.

Year of Inventory = ___________

Units of Inventory = ___________

        Sector:
        Inventory:

        On-road mobile sources
        _______________________________

        Others? Please list.
        _______________________________

What federal actions/measures (e.g., federal vehicle emissions controls;
    fleet turnover) are helping the area attain or maintain the air quality
    standard(s)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

What is the projected population growth in this isolated rural area?
    Please provide the growth rate and indicate over what period of time this
    rate applies (e.g., 2000-2020).

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What is the projected growth rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in
    this isolated rural area? Please indicate the time period for which the VMT
    rate applies.

____________________________________________________________________________________

How is VMT information determined for this isolated rural area?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________
Is
    speed information determined? If so, how?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What agency determines the VMT and speed information for this isolated
    rural area?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Have the difficulties in demonstrating conformity ever resulted in the
    area not being able to implement/approve a new transportation project?

___________ Yes ___________No
If yes, for how long was this project
    delayed? (If a project has been delayed on more than one occasion, please
    specify how long for each delayed project.)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Transportation Planning and Conformity

Is this isolated rural area implementing any transportation control
    measures included in the SIP to address its air quality
    problem?              Yes________
    No ________

If so, what is/are the specific transportation control measures that this
    area is implementing?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Given that before a new Federal non-exempt project can be approved or
    funded in an isolated rural area, a conformity determination is required.
    How many non-exempt transportation projects for this isolated rural area in
    the past 5 years required FHWA/FTA approval?

2001 ________________________________________

2000 ________________________________________

1999 ________________________________________

1998 ________________________________________

1997 ________________________________________
Did you determine
    conformity in any of these years:

1997 Yes_____________No, _______ if no, why not?
    ___________________________________

1998 Yes_____________No, _______ if no, why not?
    ___________________________________

1999 Yes_____________No, _______ if no, why not?
    ___________________________________

2000 Yes_____________No, _______ if no, why not?
    ___________________________________

2001 Yes_____________No, _______ if no, why not?
    ___________________________________

How many years into the future were analyzed for the last conformity
    determination performed for this area?

____________________________________________________________________________________

What type of SIP(s) does this isolated rural area have and for what
    years do they have motor vehicle emissions budgets (if applicable)? Please
    check all that apply.

_______

This area does not have a SIP

_______

This area has a SIP, but it does not have
          motor vehicle emissions budgets (e.g., a limited maintenance
      plan.)

_______

Attainment SIP.

What are the budget years, if budgets
          exist: __________________________

_______

15 percent SIP.

What are the budget years, if budgets
          exist: __________________________

_______

9 percent rate of progress SIP.

What are the budget years, if budgets
          exist: __________________________

_______

Maintenance Plan.

What are the budget years, if budgets
          exist: __________________________

Which of the following conformity test(s) did the isolated rural area
    use in its last conformity determination? Please mark all that apply.

_______ Budget test.

_______ Less than 1990 test.

_______ Build/no-build test.

_______ No-greater-than 1990 test.

Which method below is being used to determine conformity in the years
    beyond the timeframe of the SIP?

_______ Budget test.

_______ Build/no-build test.

_______ Less than 1990 test.

_______ No-greater-than 1990 test.

_______ Demonstration using air quality modeling (same modeling used in
    the SIP).

What agency runs the emissions analysis for this isolated rural area?
    What agency prepares the travel estimates (e.g., estimating VMT)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

How many times since January 1997 has this isolated rural area
    determined conformity? What were the dates (month and year) on which the
    conformity determination was made for this area?

Number of determinations since 1997:
    _________________________________________

Dates on which these conformity determinations were made:
    _________________________________

What triggered the need for these conformity determinations? A new
    transportation project, or some other reason?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Has this isolated rural area ever had difficulty demonstrating
    conformity (i.e., they cold not pass their conformity test as listed above)?
    If answer to this question is No, please skip to question 3-l below.

______ Yes _______ No
For what analysis years did this area have
    difficulty demonstrating conformity?

____________________________________________________________________________________
What
    was the nature of this area's conformity difficulties? Please check all that
    apply.

________ Population grew faster than anticipated.

________ New data/information on fleet resulted in higher emissions.

________ Control measures ended because of a sunset date. If yes, which
    measures?

____________________________________________________________________________________

________ Control measures ended with the end of the SIP. If yes, which
    measures?

____________________________________________________________________________________
Other?
    Please explain briefly:
    ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Why was this area not able to meet the SIP budget(s)? Please check all
    that apply.

________ SIP was based on an earlier version of emissions factor
    model.

________ SIP was based on older data that was updated for the conformity
    determination.

________ Area was experiencing unanticipated growth.

________ A control measure not being implemented; which measure?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Other? Please explain.

____________________________________________________________________________________

If this area has experienced conformity difficulties, have the
    difficulties been successfully addressed and resolved? ______ Yes ______ No.

If yes, what factors contributed to this outcome? (Choose all that apply
    from the two categories below: Revision to SIP and Revisions Transportation
    Projects.)

Revision to SIP

_________ Identifying a safety margin and applying some or all of it to
    the budget.

_________ Adding transportation control measures in the SIP. Which
    measures?

_________ Adding emission reduction control measures. Which measures?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________ Updating the budget with new data (e.g., population,
    employment, etc.).

_________ Updating the budget with a new emissions factor model.

_________ Other? Please briefly explain:

____________________________________________________________________________________

Revision to Transportation Projects

_________ Eliminating, changing scope of or delaying transportation
    projects.

_________ Adding transportation control strategies (but will not be
    included in the SIP). Which strategies?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________ Adding other emissions reduction measures (not already in the
    SIP). Which measures?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________ Adjusting assumptions for new federal rules (e.g., Tier 2 new
    vehicle emissions standards).

                   Which
    rules?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________ Other? Please briefly explain:

____________________________________________________________________________________

What resources are available, in terms of number of staff, their skill
    level and the amount of planning funds, at the local level to demonstrate
    conformity to the SIP?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Interagency Consultation

Who actually does the modeling and/or approves the conformity
    determination for the isolated rural areas?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What federal, state and local agencies are involved in the consultation
    process for this isolated rural area?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What are the consultation procedures for this isolated rural area?
    Please check all that apply.

_______

A meeting among all agencies is held
          prior to a conformity analysis (i.e., when a new project is
          initiated).

_______

A meeting among all agencies is held
          after the analysis is performed, but prior to FHWA approval of the
          conformity determination.

_______

A meeting among all agencies is only held
          if the conformity analysis indicates that the area might have
          difficulty demonstrating conformity.

_______

There has never been a meeting among all
          agencies for this area.

_______

Other? Please explain other consultation
          procedures applicable to this area.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Has the consultation process helped resolve difficulties related to
    demonstrating conformity for a new project?

_____ Yes _____ No

Why or why not? Please briefly explain:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Other Comments on the Process

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Back
to Table of Contents


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36213-36215]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1329]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and

where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1329, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Harvey County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Halstead.......................  City Hall, 303 Main Street,
                                          Halstead, KS 67056.
City of Sedgwick.......................  City Hall, 511 North Commercial
                                          Avenue, Sedgwick, KS 67135.
Unincorporated Areas of Harvey County..  County Courthouse, 800 North
                                          Main Street, Newton, KS 67114.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Monroe County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/MonroeCountyMI/SitePages/Home.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Township of Berlin.............  8000 Swan View Road, Newport,
                                          MI 48166.
Charter Township of Frenchtown.........  2744 Vivian Road, Monroe, MI
                                          48162.
Charter Township of Monroe.............  4925 East Dunbar Road, Monroe,
                                          MI 48161.
City of Luna Pier......................  4357 Buckeye Street, Luna Pier,
                                          MI 48157.
City of Monroe.........................  120 East First Street, Monroe,
                                          MI 48161.
City of Petersburg.....................  24 East Center Street,
                                          Petersburg, MI 49270.
Township of Ash........................  1677 Ready Road, Carleton, MI
                                          48117.
Township of Bedford....................  8100 Jackman Road, Temperance,
                                          MI 48182.
Township of Dundee.....................  179 Main Street, Dundee, MI
                                          48131.
Township of Erie.......................  2065 Erie Road, Erie, MI 48133.
Township of Ida........................  3016 Lewis Avenue, Ida, MI
                                          48140.
Township of Lasalle....................  4111 LaPlaisance Road, LaSalle,
                                          MI 48145.
Township of London.....................  13613 Tuttlehill Road, Milan,
                                          MI 48160.
Township of Milan......................  16444 Cone Road, Milan, MI
                                          48160.
Township of Raisinville................  96 Ida-Maybee Road, Monroe, MI
                                          48161.
Township of Summerfield................  26 Saline Street, Petersburg,
                                          MI 49270.
Township of Whiteford..................  8000 Yankee Road, Suite 100,
                                          Ottawa Lake, MI 49267.

Village of Dundee......................  350 West Monroe Street, Dundee,
                                          MI 48131.
Village of Estral Beach................  7194 Lakeview Boulevard,
                                          Newport, MI 48166.
Village of South Rockwood..............  5676 Carleton-Rockwood Road,
                                          South Rockwood, MI 48179.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Olmsted County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/OlmstedCoMN/SitePages/Home.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chatfield......................  Municipal Offices, 21 Southeast
                                          2nd Street, Chatfield, MN
                                          55923.
City of Dover..........................  City Hall, 218 North Chatfield
                                          Street, Dover, MN 55929.
City of Rochester......................  City Hall, 201 4th Street
                                          Southeast, Rochester, MN
                                          55904.
City of Stewartville...................  City Hall, 105 East 1st Street,
                                          Stewartville, MN 55976.
Unincorporated Areas of Olmsted County.  Olmsted County Government
                                          Center, 151 4th Street
                                          Southeast, Rochester, MN
                                          55904.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Upper Rock Watershed Columbia County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/ColumbiaRockRiverWI RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/ColumbiaRockRiverWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Columbus.......................  City Hall, 105 North Dickason
                                          Boulevard, Columbus, WI 53925.
Unincorporated Areas of Columbia County  Carl C. Frederick
                                          Administration Building, 400
                                          DeWitt Street, Portage, WI
                                          53901.
Village of Doylestown..................  Village Hall, W3005 Railroad
                                          Street, Doylestown, WI 53928.
Village of Fall River..................  Village Hall, 641 South Main
                                          Street, Fall River, WI 53932.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Walworth County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/WalworthWIPMR RegionalWorkspaces/RegionV/WalworthWIPMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Whitewater.....................  City Hall, 312 West Whitewater
                                          Street, Whitewater, WI 53190.
Unincorporated Areas of Walworth County  Office of Emergency Management,
                                          1770 County Road NN, Elkhorn,
                                          WI 53121.
Village of Darien......................  Village Hall, 20 North
                                          Wisconsin Avenue, Darien, WI
                                          53114.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 3, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-14265 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51585-51587]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0586; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01262-T;
Amendment 39-22136; AD 2022-16-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-26-05
and AD 2019-21-02, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200,
A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2016-26-05 and AD
2019-21-02 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that
new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary, and
that new airplanes have been added to the applicability. This AD
continues to require the actions in AD 2019-21-02, and also requires
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 27, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
27, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
November 29, 2019 (84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019).

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus service information identified in this
final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office-EAL, Rond-Point
Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61
93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet www.airbus.com. You may view this material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available in the AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0586.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0586; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0248, dated November 15, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0248) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model Airbus A330-201, A330-202,
A330-203, A330-223, A330-223F, A330-243, A330-243F, A330-301, A330-302,
A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, A330-343,
A330-841, and A330-941 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-26-05, Amendment 39 18763 (82 FR 1170,
January 5, 2017) (AD 2019-21-02) and AD 2019-21-02, Amendment 39-19768
(84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019) (AD 2019-21-02). AD 2019-21-02 applied
to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300
series airplanes, and specifies that accomplishing the revision
required by that AD terminates all requirements of AD 2016-26-05. The
NPRM published

in the Federal Register on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 30840). The NPRM was
prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary, and that new airplanes have been added to
the applicability. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions
in AD 2019-21-02 and require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD
2021-0248.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address a safety-significant latent
failure (that is not annunciated) that, in combination with one or more
other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0248 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits, and adds new
models to the applicability.
    This AD also requires Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3-Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 06,
dated October 15, 2018; and Airbus A330 ALS Part 3-Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Variation 6.1, dated June 28, 2019;
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of November 29, 2019 (84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 138 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2019-21-02 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2016-26-05, Amendment 39-18763 (82
FR 1170, January 5, 2017); and Airworthiness Directive 2019-21-02,
Amendment 39-19768 (84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-16-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22136; Docket No. FAA-2022-0586;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01262-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 27,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-26-05, Amendment 39-18763 (82 FR 1170,
January 5, 2017) (AD 2016-26-05); and AD 2019-21-02, Amendment 39-
19768 (84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019) (AD 2019-21-02).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
-343, -841, and -941 airplanes, certificated in any category, with
an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate
of airworthiness issued on or before July 1, 2021.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary, and that new
airplanes have been added to the applicability. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address a safety-significant latent failure (that is not
annunciated) that, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic
failure condition.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-21-02, with no changes. For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before
October 15, 2018: Within 90 days after November 29, 2019 (the
effective date of AD 2019-21-02), revise the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information
specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 3--Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 06,
dated October 15, 2018, as supplemented by Airbus A330 ALS Part 3--
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Variation 6.1, dated
June 28, 2019. The initial compliance times for doing the tasks is
at the time specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) Part 3--Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR),
Revision 06, dated October 15, 2018, as supplemented by Airbus A330
ALS Part 3--Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Variation
6.1, dated June 28, 2019, or within 90 days after November 29, 2019,
whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (i) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2019-21-02, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0248, dated November 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0248).
Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection
program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0248

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0248 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0248 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0248 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP [aircraft maintenance program]'' within 12 months after
its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA 2021-0248 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds,'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3)
of EASA AD 2021-0248, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2021-0248 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0248 does not apply
to this AD.

(k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2021-0248.

(l) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2019-21-02 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2021-0248 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 27, 2022.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0248,
dated November 15, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 29, 2019 (84 FR 57313, October 25, 2019).
    (i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3--
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 06, dated
October 15, 2018.
    (ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 3--Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR), Variation 6.1, dated June 28, 2019.
    (5) For EASA AD 2021-0248, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office-EAL, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93
36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet www.airbus.com.
    (7) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (8) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 29, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18114 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10086]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0135]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate a bike ride by the Cascade Bicycle Club. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to allow for the safe movement of event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on April 2, 2016 to
12:30 p.m. on April 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0135] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation requested permission for the Montlake Bridge across the
Lake Washington Ship Canal to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to facilitate the safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of event
participants. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the grand
opening of the new Evergreen Point Floating Bridge bike ride by the
Cascade Bicycle Club. The Montlake Bridge in the closed position
provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation
channel, and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60
feet of the bridge; vertical clearance references to the Mean Water
Level of Lake Washington. The deviation period is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on April 2, 2016, and from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on April 3, 2016.
The normal operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge operates in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e).
    Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from
commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass
through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at
any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Lake
Washington Ship Canal has no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 23, 2016.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-04244 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P