[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61229-61230]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4276-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Wisconsin; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-4276-DR), dated August 9,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 9, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Wisconsin resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of July 11-12, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Wisconsin.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal

assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of
the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benigno Bern Ruiz, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Wisconsin have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Florence, Iron, Sawyer, and
Washburn Counties and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior
Chippewa Tribe for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Wisconsin are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-21259 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10456-10458]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0100; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-7205; Guam, GU

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish restricted area R-7205 on
the island of Guam, GU. The US Army has been operating a Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) radar system in direct support of
national defense initiatives. The system has operated within a
Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) for over five years. The restricted
area is necessary to protect aviation from hazardous electro-magnetic
radiation and segregate non-participating aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA
Docket Number FAA-2019-0100; Airspace Docket No.

17-AWP-23 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish restricted airspace at Guam, GU, to
contain activities deemed hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket
Number FAA-2019-0100; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23) and be submitted
in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket Number FAA-2019-0100; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Background

    In 2007, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) designated Commander, US
Pacific Fleet as the executive agent of the development of the
consolidated Department of Defense (DoD) Special Use Airspace (SUA)
proposal for the United States Marine Corps (USMC) relocation to Guam.
A DoD working group began active discussions with the FAA. Since
November 2007, the working group and the FAA have coordinated on air
traffic control issues, SUA proposal integration, and International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules. In an effort to reduce
redundancies by the DoD while seeking SUA throughout the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam, PACOM submitted a
consolidated DoD SUA Proposal.
    The proposal was divided into four sub-phases outlining different
airspace requirements. The fourth phase (Phase 4) consists of the
creation of restricted airspace on the northern portion of Guam, to be
designated as R-7205. The proposed restricted area R-7205 airspace is
needed to encompass an electro-magnetic radiation hazard associated
with the THAAD radar operations.

What is a THAAD System?

    The THAAD system is a long-range, land-based air defense weapon
system that provides terminal defense against ballistic missiles. This
system is designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or
final stage flight. THAAD operates at high altitudes and provides broad
area coverage against threats to critical assets such as population
centers, industrial resources, and military forces. The system provides
a broad range of surveillance services that perform target search,
acquisition, identification, and tracking functions within the proposed
restricted area. Intercept missiles at high altitudes will take place
outside of the restricted area under military authority and
authorization.

What are the hazards associated with the THAAD System?

    During THAAD system operations, there is a potential hazard to
military and civilian aircraft. The system emits electromagnetic
radiation (EMR) that could cause adverse impacts to human health and
electromagnetic interference with electronic aircraft equipment. The
SUA is established to avoid injury and damage to personnel and
equipment from EMR emitted from the THAAD system. THAAD normally
operates in search/surveillance mode which limits the EMR to very short
durations, less than 0.2 seconds, which would not result in adverse
consequences. However, during tracking or calibration mode, the beam is
steady and the duration of EMR exposure is greater. Calibration is
performed on start-up and on regular intervals and tracking mode occurs
when the unit is actively tracking a flying target such as a missile or
a plane.

Why is the THAAD system in Guam?

    In April 2013, the U.S. Secretary of Defense directed the U.S. Army
to deploy a THAAD battery system immediately to Guam on an emergency
basis in response to potential North Korean missile launch activity.
Since the temporary deployment of the THAAD battery in 2013, the DoD
validated the enduring requirement for a THAAD battery in Guam to
ensure continued defense of the homeland against existing and emerging
missile threats by potentially hostile states in the region, as
mandated in Title 10 of the U.S.C., Armed Forces. The THAAD system
provides long-term protection for Guam residents and the U.S. forces
based there from potential ballistic

missile attacks. Alternative locations were not considered because the
purpose is to protect Guam, which requires the THAAD to be located in
Guam.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish restricted area R-7205 Guam,
GU. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of the USMC. The
proposed restricted area is described below.
    R-7205 would be established on the northern tip of Guam and
northwest of Anderson Air Force Base (AFB) abutting the Anderson AFB
Class D. The altitudes would be from 700 feet MSL to 19,000 feet MSL.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.72 Guam  [Amended]

0
 2. Section 73.72 is amended as follows:

* * * * *

R-7205 Guam, GU [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 13[deg]37'10'' N, long.
144[deg]51'58'' E; thence clockwise along the 2.4-mile radius of
point in space coordinates at lat. 13[deg]39'25'' N, long.
144[deg]51'04'' E; to lat. 13[deg]38'40'' N, long. 144[deg]53'24''
E; thence counter-clockwise along the 4.3-mile radius of Andersen
AFB Class D airspace; to the point of beginning, excluding that
airspace within R-7202 when active.
    Designated altitudes. 700 feet MSL to FL190.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling Agency. FAA, Guam CERAP.
    Using Agency. Commanding Officer, Task Force Talon, Andersen
AFB, Guam.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2019.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-04534 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36137-36139]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0600; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-017-AD;
Amendment 39-17076; AD 2012-11-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AGUSTA S.p.A. Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AW139 helicopters to determine if the hardware
that attaches the upper end of collective control rod C2 to torque tube
C3 is properly installed. This AD is prompted by the discovery of an
incorrectly-attached collective control rod. These actions are intended
to prevent separation of the collective control rod from the torque
tube, loss of control of the collective pitch, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 3, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 3,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Agusta
Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019
Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-0331-
711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2011-0226-E, dated December 2, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-0226-E), to
correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta AW139 helicopters. EASA
advises that an occurrence of incorrect installation of a collective
control rod has been reported. This improper installation was
identified on an in-service helicopter during the first annual
inspection.
    The subsequent investigation by the manufacturer led it to conclude
that this discrepancy could affect other helicopters because the
production quality control procedures did not require recording the
applied torque on the bolt attaching the collective control rod to the
torque tube. To address this unsafe condition, AgustaWestland issued
Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 139-275, dated December 1, 2011, (BT 139-
275) and EASA issued AD 2011-0226-E to require an inspection of the
attaching point of the flight control rod to the torque tube and if
improperly installed, reinstalling the parts.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight separation of the collective control rod from the torque tube,
loss of control of the collective pitch, and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, the EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by the EASA and determined the unsafe condition is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed BT 139-275, which contains procedures to inspect for
the proper installation of control rod C2 in the roof area and to
ensure that the attaching hardware that connects the control rod to the
torque tube is properly installed.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires:
     Within 5 hours time-in-service or 7 days, whichever occurs
earlier, visually inspecting the connection between

control rod C2 and torque tube C3 for the proper installation of the
bolt, washers, self locking nut, and cotter pin.
     If the installed hardware is not as prescribed in this AD,
before further flight, re-installing control rod C2 with the correct
bolt, washers, self locking nut, and cotter pin.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 helicopter of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that this operator may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Inspecting and reassembling the control rod
will require about 8 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per
hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $680. Any required parts costs
are minimal.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective
actions must be accomplished within 5 hours time-in-service, a very
short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of
these helicopters.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-11-12 AGUSTA S.P.A.: Amendment 39-17076; Docket No. FAA-2012-
0600; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-017-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AW139
helicopters, serial number (S/N) 31306, 31314, 31317, 31319, 31320,
31322, 31323, and S/N 31325 through 31345 (except S/N 31329, 31333,
31338, 31339, and 31341), certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an incorrectly installed
collective control rod, which could result in detachment of the
collective control rod, resulting in subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 3, 2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 7 days, whichever
occurs earlier, inspect the connection between the collective
control rod C2 and the torque tube C3 for proper installation of
the: bolt, part number (P/N) NAS6604D15; washer under the bolt head,
P/N A160A0432K; self-locking nut, P/N MS17825-4; washer under the
self-locking nut, P/N NAS1149D0432K; and the cotter pin, P/N
MS24655-136, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, of Agusta Bollettino
Tecnico No. 139-275, dated December 1, 2011, (ABT 139-275).
    (2) If the connection between the collective control rod C2 and
the torque tube C3 is not as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of ABT 139-
275, before further flight, properly connect control rod C2 to
torque tube C3. In order to obtain the correct bolt grip length and
cotter pin installation, you may use a maximum of 2 washers, P/N
NAS1149D0432K, under the self-locking nut.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency AD No. 2011-0226-E, dated December 2, 2011.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710: Main Rotor
Control.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 3, 2012.
    (i) Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-275, dated December 1,
2011.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15,

21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone
39-0331-711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins.
    (5) You may review the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137 or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 30, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-14385 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39013]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-2101-084-CA]

Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Notice of Meeting

July 1, 2008.
    a. Project: Upper American River Hydroelectric Project, El Dorado
County, California.
    b. Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4
p.m. (PST).
    c. Place: 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California
95825. By copy of this notice, we are also inviting all interested
parties to attend a teleconference from their location.
    d. FERC Contact: Alan Mitchnick,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    e. Purpose of the Meeting: On September 25, 2007, the Commission
requested formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on relicensing of the project. On
December 13, 2007, FWS indicated that the Commission must evaluate the
effects on listed species of the recently signed water storage
agreement between the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and
El Dorado County et al. The Commission staff will be meeting with FWS
and SMUD to discuss this issue.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, and interested parties,
are hereby invited to attend the meeting or listen in on the
teleconference. The meeting location and phone number and passcode to
the teleconference will be provided upon a request made by interested
parties. Please make that request to Alan Mitchnick via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>NO LATER THAN close of business Tuesday, July
14, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15427 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 68409]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2675-000]

AltaGas Pomona Energy Storage Inc.; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AltaGas Pomona Energy Storage Inc.s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 18, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23923 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9888-9889]
[DOCID:fr04mr10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

February 12, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-362-000.
    Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: North Baja Pipeline, LLC submits FTS-1 Lateral Rate
Schedule negotiated rate agreement.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-363-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Second
Revised Sheet 25 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to
be effective 3/6/10.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-364-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Third
Revised Sheet No 6K to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-365-000.
    Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: North Baja Pipeline, LLC submits Eighth Revised Sheet
No 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-366-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No 200 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-367-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits Eleventh
Revised Sheet 229A et al to its FERC Gas Tariff, First revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-368-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC submits
Thirteenth revised Sheet 1 to its Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100205-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 17, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-369-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC's Penalty Revenue
Crediting Report Filing for Year Ending Dec. 31, 2009.

    Filed Date: 02/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100209-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4564 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37103-37104]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16050]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0164; FRL-9997-33-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Feather
River Air Quality Management District; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule, correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct
final rule in the Federal Register on July 8, 2015, that approved
revisions to the Feather River Air Quality Management District portion
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) but did not include
all the necessary amendatory language to list all the SIP revisions
that were being approved. This document corrects this error.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 31, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38959), the EPA took
direct final action to approve revisions to the Feather River Air
Quality Management District (AQMD) portion of the California SIP.\1\
The approval covered one Feather River AQMD rule (Rule 3.8 (``Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities'')) and three Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) SIP demonstrations from Feather River AQMD: One from
2006 (``2006 RACT SIP''), one from 2009 (``2009 RACT SIP'') and one
from 2014 (``2014 RACT SIP''). In our direct final action, we
mistakenly codified our approval of Rule 3.8 twice and failed to codify
our approval of the 2009 RACT SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Feather River AQMD administers air quality management
programs in Yuba and Sutter Counties in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53739), we corrected our July 8, 2015
direct final action by replacing one of the listings for our approval
of Rule 3.8 with our approval of the 2014 RACT SIP. In our September 8,
2015 action, we also intended to replace the July 8, 2015 listing of
the 2014 RACT SIP with the missing approval of the 2009 RACT SIP, but
inadvertently failed to do so with the result that our approval of the
2014 RACT SIP is now codified at both 40 CFR 52.220(c)(459) and 40 CFR
52.220(c)(460) and the approval of the 2009 RACT SIP is still missing.
In this action, we are revising paragraph (c)(459) to list our approval
of the 2009 RACT SIP.
    The EPA has determined that this action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is
unnecessary because the underlying rule for which this correcting
amendment has been prepared was already subject to a 30-day comment
period. Further, this action is consistent with the purpose and
rationale of the final rule for which amendatory instructions are being
corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's
analyses or overall actions, no purpose would be served by additional
public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and
comment are unnecessary.
    The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section
553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of
publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an
effective date of less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final
rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects incomplete
amendatory instructions in a previous rulemaking. For these reasons,
the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this
correction to become effective on the date of publication of this
action.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation with state
officials as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October
28, 1993), or involve special consideration of environmental justice
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
    Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General
of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 16, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(459)
introductory text and (c)(459)(ii)(A)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (459) The following plan revision was submitted on October 27,
2009, by the Governor's designee.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation
Plan Revision, Negative Declaration for Control Techniques Guidelines
Issued 2006-2008 (``2009 RACT SIP''), as adopted on June 1, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-16050 Filed 7-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Run 1 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 10,000 COR 1 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 3,500 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 116 104 121 118 119 115.6 0.1 100 92 102 93 97 106 98.0 0.1 200 68 80 64 66 84 72.4 0.5 50 31 33 3 45 33 29.0 0.5 100 21 23 19 28 26 23.4 0.5 200 11 14 10 19 11 13.0 1.0 50 9 11 13 15 14 12.4 1.0 100 5 8 8 10 11 8.4 1.0 200 2 3 4 8 4 4.2 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 3.80 2.18 1.75 1.71 1.51 1.41 1.28 1.25 1.09 0.99 50 1987 3.75 2.51 2.23 1.55 1.52 1.42 1.31 1.24 1.18 1.16 50 1988 3.25 2.55 2.46 1.87 1.54 1.46 1.33 1.24 1.21 1.15 50 1989 4.71 2.39 2.37 2.06 2.04 1.67 1.61 1.51 1.47 1.38 50 1990 3.82 3.35 1.98 1.71 1.61 1.43 1.34 1.25 1.18 1.15 50 5 yr. Avg. 3.87 2.60 2.16 1.78 1.64 1.48 1.38 1.30 1.23 1.17 100 1986 3.80 1.65 1.56 1.23 1.16 1.00 0.90 0.86 0.81 0.80 100 1987 2.43 2.37 1.66 1.52 1.44 1.38 1.17 1.01 0.93 0.91 100 1988 3.08 1.82 1.51 1.33 1.16 1.11 1.10 1.04 0.81 0.80 100 1989 2.26 1.95 1.74 1.66 1.49 1.37 1.33 1.31 1.26 1.10 100 1990 3.67 2.27 1.76 1.67 1.55 1.46 1.40 1.25 1.22 1.20 100 5 yr. Avg. 3.05 2.01 1.65 1.48 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.09 1.01 0.96 200 1986 1.70 1.24 1.08 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.57 200 1987 1.69 1.19 1.08 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.77 0.71 0.65 0.58 200 1988 2.08 1.33 1.24 1.02 0.75 0.65 0.62 0.58 0.57 0.54 200 1989 2.39 1.81 1.75 1.62 1.38 1.31 1.07 1.03 0.99 0.96 200 1990 2.95 1.39 1.27 1.02 0.95 0.89 0.81 0.71 0.71 0.56 200 5 yr. Avg. 2.16 1.39 1.28 1.10 0.98 0.93 0.79 0.73 0.71 0.64 Run 2 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 10,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 6,250 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 246 251 237 221 240 239.0 0.1 100 213 224 222 201 213 214.6 0.1 200 140 124 118 122 143 129.4 0.5 50 93 108 80 80 99 92.0 0.5 100 81 87 72 70 94 80.8 0.5 200 29 24 20 27 26 25.2 1.0 50 37 38 30 35 33 34.6 1.0 100 33 22 25 21 21 24.4 1.0 200 6 4 4 15 6 7.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 4.06 3.50 3.32 2.63 2.41 2.26 2.23 2.10 2.07 1.91 50 1987 4.74 3.75 3.26 2.72 2.47 2.41 2.19 2.14 1.88 1.85 50 1988 4.29 3.40 2.92 2.82 2.79 2.67 2.51 2.48 2.42 1.98 50 1989 5.76 5.49 5.07 4.59 4.47 4.45 3.90 3.70 3.67 3.30 50 1990 6.09 4.76 3.84 3.39 3.03 2.91 2.51 2.48 2.42 2.30 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.99 4.18 3.68 3.23 3.04 2.94 2.67 2.58 2.49 2.27 100 1986 3.18 2.56 2.42 2.35 2.01 1.87 1.86 1.78 1.62 1.60 100 1987 2.59 2.10 1.98 1.90 1.83 1.63 1.51 1.43 1.41 1.40 100 1988 3.81 2.37 2.03 2.00 1.73 1.69 1.60 1.47 1.44 1.42 100 1989 4.16 3.16 3.11 2.73 2.60 2.05 1.99 1.77 1.68 1.53 100 1990 4.18 2.82 2.28 2.25 2.12 2.00 1.78 1.43 1.38 1.26 100 5 yr. Avg. 3.58 2.60 2.36 2.25 2.06 1.85 1.75 1.57 1.51 1.44 200 1986 2.89 1.74 1.67 1.37 1.32 1.16 0.94 0.87 0.86 0.84 200 1987 2.30 1.41 1.28 1.01 0.90 0.88 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.73 200 1988 2.43 1.74 1.29 1.01 0.90 0.88 0.80 0.71 0.69 0.69 200 1989 2.89 2.75 1.95 1.58 1.37 1.37 1.35 1.32 1.31 1.24 200 1990 3.33 2.83 1.79 1.56 1.34 1.05 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.87 200 5 yr. Avg. 2.77 2.09 1.59 1.30 1.17 1.07 0.99 0.91 0.90 0.87 Run 3 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 5,000 COR 1 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 3,500 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 93 82 107 99 93 94.8 0.1 100 69 79 67 82 71 73.6 0.1 200 47 54 42 49 56 49.6 0.5 50 14 17 15 23 20 17.8 0.5 100 9 9 10 13 14 11.0 0.5 200 6 6 4 12 9 7.4 1.0 50 4 4 4 7 4 4.6 1.0 100 2 3 2 4 4 3.0 1.0 200 1 0 1 1 1 0.8 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 2.47 1.57 1.26 1.02 0.98 0.93 0.82 0.81 0.70 0.68 50 1987 2.48 1.60 1.39 1.06 0.92 0.81 0.79 0.75 0.68 0.65 50 1988 1.81 1.64 1.48 1.33 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.70 0.68 0.68 50 1989 3.75 1.99 1.47 1.34 1.26 1.11 1.04 0.97 0.92 0.92 50 1990 2.39 2.09 1.24 1.09 0.94 0.90 0.80 0.72 0.71 0.67 50 5 yr. Avg. 2.58 1.77 1.37 1.17 1.01 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74 0.72 100 1986 2.52 1.16 0.98 0.76 0.68 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.46 100 1987 1.64 1.43 1.01 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.50 100 1988 2.11 1.13 0.98 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.59 0.59 0.52 0.51 100 1989 1.37 1.19 1.16 1.08 0.97 0.93 0.85 0.80 0.77 0.70 100 1990 2.13 1.39 1.09 1.03 0.92 0.91 0.84 0.78 0.77 0.74 100 5 yr. Avg. 1.95 1.26 1.04 0.90 0.83 0.78 0.70 0.65 0.62 0.58 200 1986 1.07 0.88 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.48 0.46 0.37 0.34 200 1987 0.99 0.70 0.64 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.44 0.42 0.35 0.35 200 1988 1.35 0.85 0.81 0.55 0.49 0.37 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.30 200 1989 1.44 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.76 0.75 0.72 0.59 0.54 0.52 200 1990 1.68 0.82 0.67 0.61 0.51 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.38 0.33 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.31 0.85 0.76 0.65 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.39 0.37 Run 4 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 5,000 COR 1 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 6,250 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 217 228 214 193 217 213.8 0.1 100 191 199 193 179 191 190.6 0.1 200 114 98 88 98 108 101.2 0.5 50 71 70 55 50 63 61.8 0.5 100 61 51 48 49 69 55.6 0.5 200 20 11 10 19 14 14.8 1.0 50 27 28 21 28 23 25.4 1.0 100 22 13 14 13 10 14.4 1.0 200 5 3 3 5 4 4.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 3.41 3.01 2.82 2.24 1.96 1.95 1.83 1.70 1.69 1.68 50 1987 4.14 3.03 2.60 2.30 2.11 2.04 1.84 1.67 1.63 1.48 50 1988 3.69 2.92 2.36 2.26 2.21 2.15 2.04 1.95 1.80 1.64 50 1989 4.60 0.51 4.00 3.63 3.59 3.53 3.19 2.98 2.92 2.56 50 1990 4.95 3.71 3.25 2.68 2.20 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.88 1.77 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.16 2.64 3.00 2.62 2.41 2.35 2.19 2.06 1.98 1.82 100 1986 2.61 2.26 2.11 2.06 1.80 1.60 1.53 1.45 1.38 1.35 100 1987 2.28 1.80 1.61 1.53 1.33 1.31 1.24 1.19 1.17 1.14 100 1988 3.10 1.93 1.63 1.60 1.36 1.29 1.24 1.18 1.13 1.11 100 1989 3.15 2.34 2.33 2.09 1.96 1.56 1.41 1.28 1.21 1.20 100 1990 3.21 2.20 1.70 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.48 1.15 1.09 1.02 100 5 yr. Avg. 2.87 2.11 1.88 1.79 1.62 1.47 1.38 1.25 1.20 1.16 200 1986 2.30 1.42 1.36 1.14 1.13 0.96 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.68 200 1987 1.82 1.19 1.04 0.83 0.73 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.53 200 1988 1.93 1.43 1.04 0.81 0.74 0.72 0.65 0.58 0.54 0.53 200 1989 2.11 2.03 1.55 1.10 1.08 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 200 1990 2.79 2.30 1.46 1.25 0.98 0.81 0.75 0.68 0.64 0.64 200 5 yr. Avg. 2.19 1.67 1.29 1.03 0.93 0.82 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.66 Run 5 Location EAST SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 COR 1 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 3,500 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 64 48 67 74 66 63.8 0.1 100 35 34 35 47 37 37.6 0.1 200 21 22 17 24 23 21.4 0.5 50 4 7 6 9 5 6.2 0.5 100 3 4 3 4 4 3.6 0.5 200 2 1 1 2 1 1.4 1.0 50 2 1 1 2 1 1.4 1.0 100 1 1 1 0 0 0.6 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.67 1.05 0.77 0.54 0.47 0.46 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.33 50 1987 1.73 0.98 0.83 0.68 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.49 0.39 0.36 50 1988 1.06 0.87 0.75 0.62 0.58 0.56 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 50 1989 2.91 1.66 0.86 0.81 0.66 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.49 50 1990 1.29 0.98 0.63 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.43 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.73 1.11 0.77 0.64 0.57 0.55 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.40 100 1986 1.36 0.72 0.51 0.42 0.37 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.26 100 1987 1.06 0.82 0.55 0.53 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.27 100 1988 1.26 0.56 0.53 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.26 0.26 100 1989 0.90 0.72 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 100 1990 0.84 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.39 0.33 0.29 100 5 yr. Avg. 1.08 0.69 0.55 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.29 200 1986 0.70 0.55 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.21 0.18 200 1987 0.57 0.49 0.44 0.34 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.21 200 1988 0.72 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 200 1989 0.70 0.54 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.23 200 1990 0.63 0.42 0.31 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.66 0.49 0.40 0.34 0.28 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 Run 6 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 COR 1 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 6,250 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 165 184 165 162 175 170.2 0.1 100 158 150 155 150 155 153.6 0.1 200 79 60 65 70 73 69.4 0.5 50 55 52 41 39 42 45.8 0.5 100 45 42 39 32 44 40.4 0.5 200 12 5 7 10 9 8.6 1.0 50 18 17 17 19 16 17.4 1.0 100 16 8 8 9 7 9.6 1.0 200 3 2 2 3 3 2.6 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 2.92 2.60 2.39 1.99 1.74 1.73 1.56 1.50 1.49 1.37 50 1987 3.63 2.41 2.07 1.84 1.76 1.69 1.62 1.50 1.32 1.28 50 1988 3.19 2.47 2.00 1.82 1.79 1.72 1.70 1.51 1.47 1.27 50 1989 3.57 3.45 3.05 2.87 2.83 2.74 2.57 2.40 2.24 1.93 50 1990 3.93 2.79 2.74 2.08 1.76 1.66 1.56 1.48 1.42 1.33 50 5 yr. Avg. 3.45 2.74 2.45 2.12 1.97 1.91 1.80 1.68 1.59 1.44 100 1986 2.16 2.03 1.85 1.82 1.62 1.33 1.30 1.19 1.15 1.13 100 1987 2.05 1.55 1.37 1.19 1.16 1.15 1.11 1.01 0.99 0.98 100 1988 2.49 1.68 1.39 1.28 1.13 1.09 1.03 1.02 0.96 0.95 100 1989 2.26 1.66 1.63 1.56 1.39 1.15 1.06 1.06 1.02 0.96 100 1990 2.36 1.76 1.46 1.25 1.23 1.15 1.07 0.97 0.91 0.87 100 5 yr. Avg. 2.26 1.74 1.54 1.42 1.31 1.18 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.98 200 1986 1.81 1.15 1.11 0.97 0.95 0.80 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.57 200 1987 1.42 1.04 0.84 0.68 0.63 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.43 0.41 200 1988 1.50 1.17 0.84 0.65 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.48 0.42 0.42 200 1989 1.60 1.34 1.22 0.97 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.62 0.59 0.58 200 1990 2.33 1.86 1.16 1.00 0.76 0.69 0.58 0.56 0.52 0.49 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.73 1.31 1.03 0.85 0.73 0.64 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.49 Run 7 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 350 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 10 12 13 19 17 14.2 0.1 100 6 8 8 10 12 8.8 0.1 200 3 4 4 10 4 5.0 0.5 50 0 0 0 1 0 0.2 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 0.45 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.10 50 1987 0.44 0.28 0.25 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 50 1988 0.38 0.29 0.28 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 50 1989 0.57 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.15 50 1990 0.46 0.40 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 50 5 yr. Avg. 0.46 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 100 1986 0.45 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 100 1987 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 100 1988 0.35 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 100 1989 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 100 1990 0.44 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.35 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 200 1986 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 200 1987 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 200 1988 0.23 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 200 1989 0.27 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 200 1990 0.34 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 Run 8 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 625 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 40 46 34 35 38 38.6 0.1 100 35 26 27 24 26 27.6 0.1 200 6 4 4 15 6 7.0 0.5 50 0 1 1 6 2 2.0 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 0.46 0.40 0.37 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.21 50 1987 0.56 0.45 0.37 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 50 1988 0.52 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.22 50 1989 0.72 0.69 0.63 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.38 50 1990 0.80 0.58 0.47 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 50 5 yr. Avg. 0.62 0.50 0.43 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.25 100 1986 0.36 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 100 1987 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 100 1988 0.45 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 100 1989 0.49 0.36 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 100 1990 0.49 0.31 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.14 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.41 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 200 1986 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 200 1987 0.25 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 200 1988 0.27 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 200 1989 0.32 0.31 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 200 1990 0.38 0.32 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 Run 9 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 30,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 10,000 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 161 153 164 163 164 161.0 0.1 100 146 153 146 153 171 153.8 0.1 200 124 139 133 128 136 132.0 0.5 50 90 81 95 93 87 89.2 0.5 100 66 71 64 81 65 69.4 0.5 200 48 54 39 49 56 49.2 1.0 50 45 42 56 64 45 50.4 1.0 100 32 32 29 45 41 35.8 1.0 200 20 20 20 34 20 22.8 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 8.57 5.04 4.52 4.16 3.73 3.71 3.36 3.32 2.68 2.60 50 1987 8.57 5.55 5.16 4.04 3.98 3.66 3.36 3.33 3.14 3.08 50 1988 7.66 6.26 5.67 4.71 4.04 3.81 3.54 3.32 3.25 3.12 50 1989 9.89 5.93 5.79 5.15 4.83 4.34 4.20 3.96 3.65 3.38 50 1990 8.60 7.71 5.05 4.31 3.87 3.79 3.58 3.35 3.19 3.11 50 5 yr. Avg. 8.66 6.10 5.24 4.47 4.09 3.86 3.61 3.46 3.18 3.06 100 1986 8.66 4.26 4.08 3.31 3.05 2.70 2.46 2.35 2.24 2.22 100 1987 5.98 5.83 4.33 3.99 3.80 3.66 3.15 2.75 2.57 2.50 100 1988 7.29 4.70 3.91 3.54 3.12 3.02 2.96 2.85 2.27 2.19 100 1989 5.60 4.94 4.46 4.30 3.91 3.58 3.55 3.49 3.38 2.98 100 1990 8.42 5.69 4.57 4.29 4.02 3.72 3.70 3.26 3.25 3.23 100 5 yr. Avg. 7.19 5.08 4.27 3.88 3.58 3.34 3.16 2.94 2.74 2.62 200 1986 4.40 3.31 2.92 2.39 2.36 2.26 1.88 1.78 1.77 1.59 200 1987 4.39 3.21 2.96 2.71 2.64 2.61 2.16 1.99 1.82 1.65 200 1988 5.24 3.55 3.32 2.80 2.10 1.83 1.75 1.65 1.62 1.54 200 1989 5.92 4.67 4.54 4.23 3.67 3.51 2.91 2.82 2.72 2.63 200 1990 7.07 3.70 3.41 2.79 2.61 2.46 2.26 1.99 1.98 1.58 200 5 yr. Avg. 5.40 3.69 3.43 2.98 2.67 2.53 2.19 2.05 1.98 1.80 Run 10 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 3,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 10,000 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 113 100 122 116 107 111.6 0.1 100 83 95 84 89 90 88.2 0.1 200 83 72 62 62 67 69.2 0.5 50 28 32 34 39 37 34.0 0.5 100 15 19 18 28 22 20.4 0.5 200 11 15 8 16 6 11.2 1.0 50 9 10 9 15 14 11.4 1.0 100 6 5 5 11 8 7.0 1.0 200 4 3 4 4 2 3.4 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 4.35 2.72 2.11 1.43 1.36 1.21 1.12 1.05 1.03 0.93 50 1987 3.58 2.62 2.21 1.76 1.58 1.58 1.47 1.34 1.07 1.01 50 1988 2.90 2.38 2.06 1.75 1.51 1.44 1.07 1.05 1.04 0.96 50 1989 6.82 4.01 2.39 2.09 1.85 1.84 1.60 1.52 1.45 1.36 50 1990 3.28 2.59 1.70 1.49 1.39 1.31 1.30 1.27 1.18 1.17 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.18 2.86 2.09 1.70 1.54 1.48 1.31 1.25 1.15 1.08 100 1986 3.56 2.00 1.42 1.18 1.01 1.01 0.93 0.86 0.81 0.72 100 1987 2.83 2.23 1.54 1.52 1.17 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.81 100 1988 3.34 1.59 1.50 1.10 1.06 0.99 0.88 0.82 0.78 0.75 100 1989 2.43 2.02 1.53 1.47 1.39 1.22 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.04 100 1990 2.29 1.76 1.75 1.35 1.33 1.25 1.17 1.11 0.96 0.87 100 5 yr. Avg. 2.89 1.92 1.55 1.32 1.19 1.09 1.00 0.95 0.89 0.84 200 1986 1.88 1.57 1.12 1.05 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.77 0.60 0.54 200 1987 1.56 1.38 1.23 0.98 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.60 200 1988 2.01 1.29 1.28 1.11 0.78 0.62 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.48 200 1989 1.94 1.54 1.17 1.02 0.92 0.82 0.81 0.72 0.71 0.67 200 1990 1.77 1.20 0.87 0.72 0.68 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.46 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.83 1.40 1.13 0.97 0.81 0.72 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.55 Run 11 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 3,000 Source EGU NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 50 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 48 45 59 65 54 54.2 0.1 100 34 34 28 46 41 36.6 0.1 200 21 22 20 30 21 22.8 0.5 50 4 3 4 7 5 4.6 0.5 100 2 3 2 4 4 3.0 0.5 200 1 1 1 4 1 1.6 1.0 50 1 1 1 1 2 1.2 1.0 100 1 0 1 0 1 0.6 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.29 0.69 0.57 0.54 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.30 50 1987 1.26 0.81 0.71 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.37 50 1988 1.09 0.83 0.80 0.59 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.36 50 1989 1.60 0.78 0.76 0.66 0.66 0.52 0.52 0.47 0.46 0.43 50 1990 1.31 1.12 0.63 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.36 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.31 0.85 0.69 0.56 0.52 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.36 100 1986 1.28 0.51 0.49 0.37 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.24 100 1987 0.78 0.77 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.31 0.29 0.28 100 1988 1.01 0.58 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.24 100 1989 0.73 0.62 0.55 0.53 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.34 100 1990 1.25 0.73 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.39 0.38 0.37 100 5 yr. Avg. 1.01 0.64 0.52 0.46 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.30 200 1986 0.53 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.17 200 1987 0.53 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 200 1988 0.66 0.41 0.38 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 200 1989 0.77 0.58 0.55 0.51 0.43 0.41 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.30 200 1990 0.98 0.43 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.17 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.69 0.43 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20 Run 12 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 7,000 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 157 161 142 136 167 152.6 0.1 100 103 101 92 94 115 101.0 0.1 200 53 60 47 53 61 54.8 0.5 50 53 51 42 55 61 52.4 0.5 100 22 19 15 26 22 20.8 0.5 200 12 7 6 12 10 9.4 1.0 50 18 23 13 22 18 18.8 1.0 100 6 8 7 10 9 8.0 1.0 200 2 1 3 4 2 2.4 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 5.99 3.27 2.51 2.01 1.98 1.84 1.77 1.56 1.39 1.34 50 1987 4.02 3.19 2.92 2.58 2.17 2.10 1.82 1.70 1.59 1.53 50 1988 3.21 2.38 2.15 2.13 1.87 1.86 1.57 1.39 1.37 1.24 50 1989 5.59 3.21 2.71 2.58 2.08 1.95 1.84 1.79 1.66 1.65 50 1990 4.33 3.35 2.68 2.20 1.79 1.73 1.70 1.69 1.61 1.40 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.63 3.08 2.59 2.30 1.98 1.90 1.74 1.62 1.53 1.43 100 1986 3.32 2.46 1.80 1.55 1.35 1.04 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.86 100 1987 2.52 1.81 1.39 1.26 1.16 1.08 1.07 1.06 0.83 0.81 100 1988 3.84 1.69 1.50 1.27 1.12 1.10 1.02 0.86 0.75 0.71 100 1989 3.64 1.92 1.61 1.40 1.29 1.28 1.19 1.19 1.17 1.06 100 1990 3.46 2.05 1.48 1.27 1.21 1.13 1.06 1.04 1.00 0.88 100 5 yr. Avg. 3.35 1.99 1.55 1.35 1.23 1.12 1.07 1.02 0.94 0.86 200 1986 1.67 1.08 0.96 0.89 0.66 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.52 200 1987 1.52 0.95 0.87 0.84 0.63 0.55 0.54 0.44 0.42 0.40 200 1988 1.94 1.18 1.12 0.84 0.76 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.36 0.33 200 1989 2.17 1.37 1.23 1.12 0.88 0.83 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.66 200 1990 2.19 1.17 0.98 0.83 0.73 0.68 0.67 0.54 0.53 0.50 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.90 1.15 1.03 0.91 0.73 0.64 0.60 0.53 0.50 0.48 Run 13 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 7,000 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 252 263 251 240 247 250.6 0.1 100 189 195 207 181 195 193.4 0.1 200 103 88 83 86 95 91.0 0.5 50 93 93 90 81 92 89.8 0.5 100 41 32 31 30 36 34.0 0.5 200 9 6 7 18 8 9.6 1.0 50 33 26 21 25 21 25.2 1.0 100 7 6 6 40 6 13.0 1.0 200 1 1 1 3 2 1.6 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 6.05 3.30 2.73 2.27 1.97 1.94 1.86 1.75 1.64 1.61 50 1987 3.89 3.11 3.09 2.53 2.26 2.01 1.92 1.81 1.74 1.65 50 1988 6.27 4.15 2.99 2.73 2.38 2.12 1.83 1.69 1.60 1.56 50 1989 5.36 4.60 3.83 3.65 3.51 3.48 3.19 3.10 3.05 2.91 50 1990 5.33 3.89 3.72 3.24 2.62 2.32 2.29 2.19 2.13 1.87 50 5 yr. Avg. 5.38 3.81 3.27 2.88 2.55 2.38 2.22 2.11 2.03 1.92 100 1986 1.52 1.42 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.23 1.12 0.93 0.89 0.88 100 1987 2.64 1.53 1.15 1.10 1.06 1.01 0.96 0.89 0.81 0.76 100 1988 3.01 2.64 1.56 1.33 1.20 1.10 0.91 0.89 0.81 0.80 100 1989 2.59 2.24 2.10 1.90 1.75 1.41 1.24 1.22 1.03 1.01 100 1990 3.16 1.73 1.55 1.46 1.16 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.81 100 5 yr. Avg. 2.58 1.91 1.53 1.41 1.28 1.16 1.04 0.98 0.90 0.85 200 1986 1.35 0.83 0.79 0.69 0.68 0.64 0.63 0.51 0.51 0.49 200 1987 1.20 0.87 0.68 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.43 200 1988 1.77 0.97 0.74 0.65 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.40 200 1989 1.69 1.40 1.07 0.91 0.85 0.84 0.79 0.73 0.70 0.68 200 1990 1.63 1.42 1.00 0.77 0.66 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.44 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.53 1.10 0.86 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.59 0.53 0.51 0.49 Run 14 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 900 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 78 86 73 79 98 82.8 0.1 100 33 37 27 45 34 35.2 0.1 200 18 15 10 6 9 11.6 0.5 50 12 16 9 13 10 12.0 0.5 100 4 3 3 2 2 2.8 0.5 200 1 0 1 1 1 0.8 1.0 50 3 3 1 4 1 2.4 1.0 100 1 0 1 1 0 0.6 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 2.48 1.07 1.01 0.99 0.83 0.69 0.67 0.65 0.61 0.58 50 1987 1.56 1.36 1.14 0.99 0.86 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.67 0.60 50 1988 1.14 0.96 0.86 0.82 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.50 0.44 50 1989 2.30 1.23 1.16 1.01 0.86 0.73 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.55 50 1990 1.55 0.90 0.89 0.75 0.72 0.65 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.52 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.81 1.10 1.01 0.91 0.80 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.54 100 1986 1.15 0.81 0.60 0.51 0.46 0.43 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.29 100 1987 0.88 0.69 0.54 0.47 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.31 100 1988 1.29 0.55 0.53 0.47 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.25 0.25 100 1989 1.25 0.78 0.47 0.47 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 100 1990 0.97 0.62 0.42 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.25 0.24 0.23 100 5 yr. Avg. 1.11 0.69 0.51 0.46 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.28 200 1986 0.51 0.37 0.29 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 200 1987 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 200 1988 0.55 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 200 1989 0.75 0.33 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 200 1990 0.55 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.54 0.33 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.13 Run 15 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 900 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 160 170 161 155 156 160.4 0.1 100 102 79 94 89 100 92.8 0.1 200 23 18 21 21 21 20.8 0.5 50 33 29 23 24 19 25.6 0.5 100 7 5 4 5 2 4.6 0.5 200 1 0 1 0 2 0.8 1.0 50 8 8 5 11 5 7.4 1.0 100 0 1 1 0 1 0.6 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 2.75 1.30 1.28 1.25 1.19 1.08 1.05 1.03 0.99 0.98 50 1987 2.17 1.49 1.44 1.27 1.16 1.10 1.07 1.06 0.92 0.85 50 1988 3.12 1.85 1.22 1.14 1.13 0.98 0.91 0.87 0.85 0.81 50 1989 2.05 1.85 1.62 1.55 1.54 1.53 1.31 1.22 1.19 1.16 50 1990 2.28 1.93 1.46 1.43 1.32 0.97 0.93 0.68 0.67 0.66 50 5 yr. Avg. 2.47 1.68 1.40 1.33 1.27 1.13 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.89 100 1986 0.81 0.80 0.71 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.46 0.45 0.43 100 1987 1.20 0.73 0.62 0.60 0.54 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.40 0.35 100 1988 1.20 0.95 0.73 0.54 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36 100 1989 0.83 0.77 0.65 0.61 0.56 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36 100 1990 1.06 0.61 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.36 100 5 yr. Avg. 1.02 0.77 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.37 200 1986 0.52 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.19 0.18 200 1987 0.45 0.34 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.14 200 1988 0.66 0.42 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.13 200 1989 0.47 0.46 0.34 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 200 1990 0.68 0.61 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.56 0.44 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.16 Run 16 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 900 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 300 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 38 37 30 50 50 41.0 0.1 100 16 15 10 18 14 14.6 0.1 200 5 4 5 6 4 4.8 0.5 50 2 3 1 2 2 2.0 0.5 100 1 0 1 1 1 0.8 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 1 0 0 1 0 0.4 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.20 0.53 0.42 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.24 50 1987 0.68 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.37 0.35 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.26 50 1988 0.55 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.19 50 1989 1.06 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.25 50 1990 0.73 0.54 0.45 0.36 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 50 5 yr. Avg. 0.84 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.24 100 1986 0.56 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 100 1987 0.41 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 100 1988 0.65 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.11 100 1989 0.60 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15 100 1990 0.54 0.32 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.55 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 200 1986 0.25 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 200 1987 0.22 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 200 1988 0.30 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 200 1989 0.35 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 200 1990 0.32 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.29 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 Run 17 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 900 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 300 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 76 76 72 58 72 70.8 0.1 100 31 19 23 17 21 22.2 0.1 200 7 3 3 10 4 5.4 0.5 50 2 2 3 9 4 4.0 0.5 100 0 0 1 0 1 0.4 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 1 0 1 0 1 0.6 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.20 0.57 0.45 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.30 50 1987 0.74 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30 50 1988 1.28 0.77 0.51 0.45 0.38 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.28 50 1989 0.99 0.84 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.49 50 1990 1.01 0.73 0.65 0.59 0.48 0.40 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.30 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.04 0.69 0.56 0.51 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.33 100 1986 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 100 1987 0.46 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 100 1988 0.51 0.43 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 100 1989 0.41 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 100 1990 0.52 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.13 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.44 0.31 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 200 1986 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 200 1987 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 200 1988 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 200 1989 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 200 1990 0.26 0.24 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 Run 18 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 0 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 40 42 39 52 52 45.0 0.1 100 18 20 17 25 13 18.6 0.1 200 9 5 2 6 2 4.8 0.5 50 5 4 2 4 1 3.2 0.5 100 1 0 1 1 0 0.6 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 1 1 0 1 0 0.6 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.36 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.55 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.33 50 1987 1.03 0.72 0.69 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.38 0.37 50 1988 0.71 0.54 0.50 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.26 50 1989 1.24 0.73 0.63 0.55 0.49 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.34 50 1990 0.85 0.47 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.29 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.04 0.62 0.57 0.51 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 100 1986 0.57 0.39 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 100 1987 0.47 0.43 0.31 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.17 100 1988 0.61 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 100 1989 0.67 0.49 0.27 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 100 1990 0.46 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.56 0.38 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15 200 1986 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 200 1987 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 200 1988 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 200 1989 0.37 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.06 200 1990 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.27 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 Run 19 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 0 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 500 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 17 25 19 30 25 23.2 0.1 100 8 8 5 7 4 6.4 0.1 200 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 0.5 50 1 1 0 1 0 0.6 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 0.72 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.17 50 1987 0.53 0.37 0.35 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19 50 1988 0.36 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.14 50 1989 0.64 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 50 1990 0.44 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 50 5 yr. Avg. 0.54 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 100 1986 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 100 1987 0.24 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 100 1988 0.31 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 100 1989 0.34 0.25 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 100 1990 0.23 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.28 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 200 1986 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 200 1987 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 200 1988 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 200 1989 0.18 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 200 1990 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 Run 20 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 0 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,000 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 117 105 98 105 106 106.2 0.1 100 59 49 52 48 61 53.8 0.1 200 10 5 7 8 7 7.4 0.5 50 15 11 10 12 7 11.0 0.5 100 2 1 1 0 1 1.0 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 1 1 2 1 2 1.4 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 1.58 0.88 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.69 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.63 50 1987 1.46 0.98 0.90 0.83 0.76 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.60 0.51 50 1988 1.88 1.07 0.75 0.74 0.70 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.51 50 1989 1.08 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.87 0.83 0.77 0.65 0.63 0.62 50 1990 1.27 1.17 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.55 0.51 0.43 0.42 0.38 50 5 yr. Avg. 1.45 1.02 0.85 0.82 0.78 0.67 0.64 0.59 0.57 0.53 100 1986 0.51 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.26 100 1987 0.70 0.47 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.21 100 1988 0.64 0.48 0.42 0.35 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 100 1989 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 100 1990 0.51 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.56 0.44 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 200 1986 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.10 200 1987 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 200 1988 0.35 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 200 1989 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 200 1990 0.39 0.34 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09 Run 21 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 0 Source IB NOx emission rate ( tpy) 500 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 63 59 51 50 57 56.0 0.1 100 20 11 11 14 14 14.0 0.1 200 3 1 2 1 4 2.2 0.5 50 1 2 2 2 2 1.8 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 0.82 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 50 1987 0.75 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.27 50 1988 0.98 0.55 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 50 1989 0.55 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.32 0.31 0.31 50 1990 0.65 0.60 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.20 50 5 yr. Avg. 0.75 0.52 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.27 100 1986 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 100 1987 0.35 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 100 1988 0.32 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 100 1989 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 100 1990 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 100 5 yr. Avg. 0.28 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 200 1986 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 200 1987 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 200 1988 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 200 1989 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 200 1990 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 200 5 yr. Avg. 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 Run 22 Location East SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 7,000 Source IB  HIGH NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 148 152 134 133 171 147.6 0.1 100 97 100 90 94 113 98.8 0.1 200 54 60 48 51 62 55.0 0.5 50 46 44 40 51 57 47.6 0.5 100 22 19 15 25 22 20.6 0.5 200 10 7 6 13 10 9.2 1.0 50 16 17 13 16 15 15.4 1.0 100 7 8 6 10 8 7.8 1.0 200 2 1 3 4 2 2.4 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 5.35 3.07 2.30 1.90 1.82 1.64 1.61 1.38 1.31 1.26 50 1987 4.12 2.83 2.58 2.16 2.05 1.87 1.72 1.52 1.38 1.36 50 1988 3.08 2.28 1.99 1.84 1.76 1.59 1.47 1.33 1.24 1.21 50 1989 5.04 3.05 2.64 2.47 2.06 1.74 1.62 1.54 1.52 1.47 50 1990 4.08 3.16 2.46 2.21 1.66 1.59 1.57 1.55 1.35 1.26 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.34 2.88 2.39 2.12 1.87 1.68 1.60 1.46 1.36 1.31 100 1986 3.10 2.32 1.87 1.46 1.31 1.05 1.02 0.88 0.86 0.85 100 1987 2.45 1.86 1.45 1.23 1.15 1.10 1.08 1.05 0.76 0.74 100 1988 3.81 1.66 1.39 1.27 1.13 1.12 0.95 0.87 0.77 0.72 100 1989 3.52 1.90 1.63 1.43 1.23 1.20 1.17 1.16 1.12 1.08 100 1990 3.50 2.06 1.48 1.28 1.21 1.14 1.08 1.04 0.94 0.88 100 5 yr. Avg. 3.28 1.96 1.57 1.33 1.20 1.12 1.06 1.00 0.89 0.85 200 1986 1.66 1.10 0.92 0.90 0.69 0.66 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.51 200 1987 1.46 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.64 0.58 0.55 0.44 0.42 0.41 200 1988 1.98 1.23 1.13 0.85 0.76 0.50 0.47 0.39 0.35 0.33 200 1989 2.08 1.37 1.25 1.14 0.91 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.65 200 1990 2.21 1.19 0.98 0.87 0.73 0.69 0.68 0.54 0.54 0.52 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.88 1.17 1.03 0.93 0.74 0.65 0.59 0.52 0.50 0.48 Run 23 Location West SO2 emission rate ( tpy) 7,000 Source IB  HIGH NOx emission rate ( tpy) 1,400 PM2.5 emission rate ( tpy) 20 ddv ( km) Days Above ddv Threshold 5 year Threshold Distance 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg.

0.1 50 248 256 247 240 241 246.4 0.1 100 187 193 202 179 192 190.6 0.1 200 103 88 83 85 93 90.4 0.5 50 86 87 86 73 80 82.4 0.5 100 39 31 31 28 32 32.2 0.5 200 9 6 7 18 8 9.6 1.0 50 24 26 20 24 18 22.4 1.0 100 7 5 6 9 6 6.6 1.0 200 1 1 1 3 2 1.6 Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance Dist ( km) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 1986 5.11 3.24 2.60 2.27 1.81 1.78 1.70 1.62 1.55 1.53 50 1987 3.51 3.07 3.02 2.35 2.21 1.97 1.72 1.72 1.64 1.56 50 1988 5.50 4.04 2.66 2.52 2.22 2.10 1.78 1.62 1.53 1.41 50 1989 5.16 3.84 3.55 3.33 3.30 3.22 3.18 2.99 2.89 2.81 50 1990 5.29 3.80 3.50 2.97 2.50 2.23 2.21 2.16 2.09 1.86 50 5 yr. Avg. 4.91 3.60 3.07 2.69 2.41 2.26 2.12 2.02 1.94 1.83 100 1986 1.52 1.37 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.21 1.08 0.92 0.88 0.85 100 1987 2.58 1.50 1.17 1.10 1.02 0.99 0.93 0.89 0.80 0.75 100 1988 2.63 2.29 1.49 1.26 1.17 1.04 0.90 0.87 0.83 0.82 100 1989 2.62 2.14 2.11 1.90 1.78 1.40 1.22 1.20 1.01 0.97 100 1990 3.23 1.76 1.57 1.51 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.80 100 5 yr. Avg. 2.52 1.81 1.52 1.40 1.26 1.14 1.02 0.97 0.89 0.84 200 1986 1.34 0.82 0.79 0.69 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.52 0.51 0.49 200 1987 1.21 0.86 0.67 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.42 200 1988 1.71 0.97 0.71 0.69 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.43 0.40 0.40 200 1989 1.72 1.41 1.07 0.93 0.85 0.84 0.81 0.70 0.69 0.68 200 1990 1.58 1.44 0.98 0.78 0.66 0.60 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.44 200 5 yr. Avg. 1.51 1.10 0.85 0.74 0.66 0.64 0.60 0.53 0.51 0.48


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11785-11786]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-73-000]

Port Barre Investments, LLC (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage); Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on February 12, 2016, Port Barre Investments,
L.L.C. (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage) (Bobcat), 5400 Westheimer Court,
Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed an application, pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations for an amendment to a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity issued to Bobcat on March 19, 2009 in Docket No. CP09-19-000,
as amended by Commission orders on March 31, 2010 in Docket No. CP10-
30-000, and on April 8, 2011 in Docket No. CP11-124-000. The March 19
Order authorized Bobcat to construct, own, operate, and maintain three
additional natural gas storage facilities (Cavern Nos. 3, 4, and 5) at
the salt dome in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. With this application,
Bobcat is seeking authorization to amend its certificate to reflect a
change in the base gas capacity for Cavern Well No. 4 from 2.5 billion
cubic feet (Bcf) to 3.5 Bcf, and a change in total gas capacity for
Cavern Well No. 4 from 12.4 Bcf to 13.4 Bcf, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. No changes are proposed by Bobcat to the
certificated working gas capacity for any of the caverns.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa
A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Bobcat Gas
Storage, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or by calling (713)
627-4102 (telephone) or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR. 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list

maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies
of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A
party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must
mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: March 21, 2016.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04954 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 12976]
[DOCID:fr11mr08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3255-012]

Lyonsdale Associates, Lyonsdale Associates, LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

March 3, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.: 3255-012.
    c. Date Filed: February 15, 2008.
    d. Applicants: Lyonsdale Associates (transferor) and Lyonsdale
Associates, LLC (Transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Project: Lyonsdale Hydroelectric Project is
located on the Moose River in Lewis County, New York.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Applicant Contacts: For the transferor: Mr. John Matt, Lyonsdale
Associates, C/O Burrows Paper Corporation, 501 W. Main Street, Little
Falls, NY 13365.
     For the transferee: Mr. John Matt, Lyonsdale Associates, LLC, C/O
Burrows Paper Corporation, 501 W. Main Street, Little Falls, NY 13365.
    h. FERC Contact: Robert Bell at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: April 3, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project
Number on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: Applicants seek Commission approval
to transfer the license for the Lyonsdale Hydroelectric Project from
Lyonsdale Associates, to Lyonsdale Associates, LLC.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
(P-3255) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
g above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants'
representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4729 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P