[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62948-62949]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' and Board of
Directors' Meetings

October 14, 2014.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional
State Committee (RSC), SPP Members Committee and Board of Directors, as
noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing
outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at SPP's Corporate Center, 201 Worthen
Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223.

SPP RE

    October 27, 2014 (8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.)

SPP RSC

    October 27, 2014 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)

SPP Members/Board of Directors

    October 28, 2014 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:
    Docket No. EL05-19, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER05-168, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER06-274, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC
    Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
    Docket No. ER09-548, ITC Great Plains, LLC
    Docket No. EL11-34, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. ER11-4105, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL12-28, Xcel Energy Services Inc., et al.
    Docket No. EL12-59, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Docket No. EL12-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., et al.
    Docket No. ER12-480, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. ER12-959, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER12-1586, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-366, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-367, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-1173, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-1748, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER13-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-21, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-30, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-49, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-65, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-85, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL14-93, Kansas Corporation Commission v. Westar Energy,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-781, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1653, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Docket No. ER14-1713, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-1993, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2022, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2081, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2107, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2363, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER14-2399, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2445, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2553, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2555, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2570, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2684, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2739, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2753, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2770, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2849, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2850, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2851, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2859, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2870, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2887, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2891, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2910, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2921, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER14-2922, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER14-2923, Southwestern Public Service Company
    Docket No. ER14-2927, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-10, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-20, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-45, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-47, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24975 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22828-22830]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9894]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0384; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-058-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-700 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 737-700 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require,
for certain airplanes, replacing the seat track pivot link assemblies,
seat track sections, and floor panels. For certain airplanes, this
proposed AD would also require moving certain rows of passenger seats.
For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would require inspecting
certain areas of the seat tracks for damage and corrective actions if
necessary, and moving certain rows of passenger seats. This proposed AD
results from reports that the aft seat leg fittings span the station
(STA) 521.45 stay-out zone. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure
of the seat attachment structure and possible injury to passengers
during an emergency landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0384;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-058-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report that the aft seat leg fittings span the
station (STA) 521.45 stay-out zone. The STA 521.45 stay-out zone
defines the flex area of the airplane while in flight and defines
fatigue loading of the airplane structure. On some airplanes, the
passenger seat leg shear plunger is installed across the seat track
pivot joint at approximately STA 521. The existing passenger seat track
and pivot link design was not intended to carry seat leg plunger point
loads at this location. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in failure of the seat attachment structure and possible injury to
passengers during an emergency landing.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 737-25-
1598, dated December 8, 2009; and 737-25-1599, dated January 20, 2010.
Those special attention service bulletins describe procedures for doing
a general visual inspection of the seat tracks in the area of STA
521.45 for damage, and corrective actions if necessary, and moving
certain rows of seats. The corrective actions include modifying the
seat tracks.
    We have also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, which describes
procedures for:
     Replacing floor panels with new floor panels between STA
500C and STA 540;
     Replacing seat track pivot link assemblies with new
assemblies; and
     Replacing seat track sections between STA 500C + 9.25 and
STA 520 with new seat track sections.
    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-
1596, dated November 20, 2008, which describes procedures for, among
other things, moving certain airplane seats to the correct location on
the seat tracks.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Difference Between the Proposed AD and a Service Bulletin.''

Difference Between the Proposed AD and a Service Bulletin

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated
November 20, 2008, specifies the accomplishment of Recaro Service
Bulletin 4400-25DC052, this proposed AD would not require that action.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 50 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
    Boeing Service Bulletin        Work hours     Average labor           Parts              Cost per product       registered          Fleet cost
                                                  rate per hour                                                      airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
737-53-1286....................              96             $85  Up to $28,258..........  Up to $36,418.........              50  Up to $1,820,900.
737-25-1596....................               4              85  None...................  340...................              12  4,080.
737-25-1598....................               3              85  None...................  255...................               1  255.
737-25-1599....................               3              85  None...................  255...................              14  3,570.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0384; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-058-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 9, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the
service bulletins specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)
of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286,
Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009.
    (2) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated
December 8, 2009.
    (3) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated
January 20, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/Furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports that the aft seat leg fittings
span the station (STA) 521.45 stay-out zone. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seat
attachment structure and possible injury to passengers during an
emergency landing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Modifying Seat Track Structure

    (g) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009: Within 72
months after the effective date of this AD, replace, with new
components, certain floor panels, seat track pivot link assemblies,
and seat track sections with new components, and modify certain seat
tracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated
December 14, 2009.

Moving Seat Rows After Modifying Seat Track Structure

    (h) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated November 20, 2008: Move certain seat
rows in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated November 20,
2008, at the applicable time required in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009: After
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD but
within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes not identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009:
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

Moving Seat Rows and General Visual Inspection of Seat Tracks

    (i) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated December 8, 2009: Within 72 months after
the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of
certain areas of the seat tracks for damage, all applicable
corrective actions, and move certain seat rows, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated December 8, 2009. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.
    (j) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated January 20, 2010: Within 72 months after
the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of
certain areas of the seat tracks for damage, do all applicable
corrective actions, and move certain seat rows, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated January 20, 2010. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Patrick
Gillespie, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (m) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9894 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51416-51418]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20676]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0153; FRL-10000-26-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina: Amendments of Air Quality
Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ),
through a letter dated March 21, 2018, readopting and amending air
quality rules related to transportation conformity requirements in the
state of North Carolina. EPA has determined that North Carolina's March
21, 2018, SIP revision is consistent with the federal transportation
conformity requirements and the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0153. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by DAQ, through a letter
dated March 21, 2018, seeking to readopt and amend the air quality
rules pertaining to transportation conformity in the North Carolina
SIP.\1\ North Carolina's SIP submission revises the following North
Carolina regulations in 15A NCAC 2D Section .2000: Section .2001
Purpose, Scope and Applicability, Section .2002 Definitions, Section
.2003 Transportation Conformity Determination, and Section .2005
Memorandum of Agreement.\2\ The changes submitted by North Carolina
include updates to applicability and definitions, updates to
references, clarifications regarding written commitments to implement
control measures, and non-substantive wording, punctuation and
formatting changes. EPA is approving the changes to rules .2001, .2002,
.2003,\3\ and .2005 because the changes do not alter transportation
conformity requirements in North Carolina for any applicable area, nor
do these changes conflict with the federal requirements for
transportation conformity. Thus, the changes are consistent with the
federal transportation conformity requirements and the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the official electronic version of the
submittal on April 4, 2018. EPA has already taken action on the
other North Carolina changes submitted through the cover letter
dated March 21, 2018, in a separate action. See 84 FR 14308.
    \2\ The table at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), identifying the North
Carolina regulations approved into the SIP, labels each rule as a
``Sect.'' (i.e., Section) under the column titled ``State
citation.'' For consistency with the nomenclature used in the table,
this notice uses the term ``Section'' when referring to individual
North Carolina rules.
    \3\ With respect to Section .2003, EPA notes that it is
approving a cross-reference to the entirety of 40 CFR 93.104 into
North Carolina's SIP. Accordingly, EPA is removing the regulatory
text in 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(1) that previously stated ``Except for the
incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 93.104(e) of the Transportation
Conformity Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed approval of the North Carolina March 21, 2018, SIP
revision to amend the transportation conformity related state
regulations, as mentioned above, on July 8, 2019 (84 FR 32359). The
details of North Carolina's submission and the rationale for EPA's
actions are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments were due on
August 7, 2019, and EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed
action. EPA is now taking final action to approve the above-referenced
revisions.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
following air quality rules under Subchapter 2D of North Carolina's
SIP: Section .2001 Purpose, Scope and Applicability, Section .2002
Definitions, Section .2003 Transportation Conformity Determination, and
Section .2005 Memorandum of Agreement effective January 1, 2018, which
amend the State's transportation conformity requirements. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's March 21,
2018, SIP revision, which amends and readopts the following rules in
Subchapter 2D, Air Pollution Control Requirements: Section .2001
Purpose, Scope and Applicability, Section .2002 Definitions, Section
.2003 Transportation Conformity Determination, and Section .2005
Memorandum of Agreement. EPA is taking final action to approve these
revisions into the State of North Carolina's SIP because they are
consistent with the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, if
they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely approves state
law as

meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Does not contain significant regulatory actions subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted
under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Does not contain economically significant regulatory
actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Does not contain significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Carbon
monoxide, Sulfur dioxide, Particulate matter, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 11, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 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 II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770, the table (1) in paragraph (c) is amended under
``Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements'', ``Section .2000
Transportation Conformity'' by revising the entries for ``Section
.2001'', ``Section .2002'', ``Section .2003'', and ``Section .2005'' to
read as follows.

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   (1) EPA Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
      State citation           Title/subject        effective      EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Section .2000 Transportation Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section .2001............  Purpose, Scope and          1/1/2018  9/30/2019 [Insert
                            Applicability.                        citation of
                                                                  publication].
Section .2002............  Definitions.........        1/1/2018  9/30/2019 [Insert
                                                                  citation of
                                                                  publication].
Section .2003............  Transportation              1/1/2018  9/30/2019 [Insert
                            Conformity                            citation of
                            Determination.                        publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section .2005............  Memorandum of               1/1/2018  9/30/2019 [Insert
                            Agreement.                            citation of
                                                                  publication].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-20676 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23629]
[DOCID:fr20my09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0337]

Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal,
New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
SR 46 (St. Claude Avenue) bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile 6.2 East of Harvey Lock) in New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana. This deviation provides for the bridge to
remain closed to navigation for approximately 36 consecutive hours
within two 42 hour windows of opportunity to conduct scheduled
maintenance to the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on Saturday, May 23,
2009 until 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, May 24, 2009, and from 6 a.m. on
Saturday, May 30, 2009 until 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, May 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0337 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0337
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. The material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have question on this deviation
call David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504) 671-
2128. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Commissioners of the Port of
New Orleans has requested a temporary deviation in order to perform
maintenance on the lakeside operating strut guide of the bridge. These
repairs are necessary for the continued operation of the bridge. This
deviation allows the draw of the St. Claude Avenue, bascule bridge
across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 0.5 (GIWW mile 6.2 East
of Harvey Lock), to remain closed to navigation for 36 consecutive
hours between 6 a.m. on May 23, 2009 and 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, May 24,
2009. Work on the bridge will begin at 6 a.m. on May 23, 2009 unless a
deep draft vessel requires a bridge opening during the morning hours.
If a deep draft vessel needs a bridge opening, the work may be
postponed for up to six hours.
    The bascule bridge has a vertical clearance of 1 foot above high
water in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway
consists mainly of tugs with tows and some ships. The bridge normally
opens for navigation an average of eight times during the deviation
period. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.458(a), the draw of the bridge
shall open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from
3:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays,
the draw need not open for the passage of vessels. Normally, the draw
is required to open at any time for a vessel in distress. However, the
bridge will not be able to open for emergencies during the closure
period. No alternate routes are available.
    If for any reason, the work cannot be accomplished on May 23, 2009,
the work will be postponed for one week and the same schedule will be
used beginning at 6 a.m. on Saturday, May 30, 2009 until 11:59 p.m. on
Sunday, May 31, 2009.
    The Coast Guard has coordinated the closure with waterway users,
industry, and other Coast Guard units. These dates and this schedule
were chosen so as to minimize the significant effects on vessel
traffic.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-11690 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 14360]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR19-19-000]

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order: Grand Prix Pipeline LLC

    Take notice that on April 2, 2019, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2018), Grand Prix
Pipeline LLC (Grand Prix) filed a petition for a declaratory order
seeking approval of the specific structure, terms of service, and
prorationing methodology for a new committed interstate transportation
service on its pipeline system that Grand Prix is modifying and
extending to transport volumes of mixed natural gas liquids (NGL) in
interstate commerce from an interconnection point in Texas to NGL
storage facilities at the storage, fractionation, and marketing hub of
Mont Belvieu, Texas, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 website 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 protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 2, 2019.

    Dated: April 3, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07041 Filed 4-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                          Response to Public Comments
          from the EPA Notice: Proposed State Allocation Formula for
          Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant Program

                        Docket ID#: EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0282

  Response to Public Comments: EPA Proposed State Allocation Formula for the
          Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant Program

 Introduction

On August 4, 2020 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) [EPA - HQ - OW - 2020 - 0282] for public comment announcing a proposed allocation formula for the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants program. As required by the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA is to establish a formula to allocate proportional shares of the annual amount appropriated for the program to state entities (for purposes of this notice, the term "state" refers to the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories) to fund actions that will help manage combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and stormwater. EPA was directed to develop a formula based on the relevant infrastructure needs submitted in the most recent Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) along with additional information considered appropriate by the EPA Administrator.

The comment period closed on September 3, 2020 and 16 comments were collected from the following: anonymous; California Association of Sanitation Agencies; California Stormwater Quality Association; Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Rep. Lori Trahan of U.S. House of Representatives; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; Massachusetts Rivers Alliance; Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy - Water Resources Division; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; National Ground Water Association; National Municipal Stormwater Alliance; National Stormwater Center; New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Rep. Gwen Moore of U.S. House of Representatives; and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

 Decision on the Proposed Allocation Formula

Section 221 of the CWA gives EPA the responsibility to make grants to states for the purposes of addressing CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs. EPA is also required to develop an allocation formula to provide each state a proportional share of appropriated funds based on: 1) the total needs of the state for municipal CSO controls, SSO controls, and stormwater management identified in the most recent detailed estimate and comprehensive study submitted pursuant to section 221(g)(2) of the CWA (the CWNS); and, 2) other available information the Administrator considers appropriate. The most recent CWNS collected needs information as of January 2012 and given the age of its data, EPA reviewed other data sources potentially relevant for assessing CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs that are consistently available for all 56 state entities and collected by an authoritative entity in the federal government.
In following these statutory requirements, EPA believes that the formula proposed in the August 4, 2020 FRN is the best approach currently available to allocate grants to each state entity. The proposed allocation formula, including its supplemental factors and associated formula weights, will be maintained and applied as the allocation formula to be used for the section 221 program. The formula will include the following factors with corresponding formula weights: CWNS data on CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater needs carrying 50 percent of the formula weight; state precipitation data set at 16.67 percent of the formula weight; total state population data set at 16.67 percent of the formula weight; and urban population data set at 16.67 percent of the formula weight. The comments received in response to this notice were processed and summarized into categories. Each category represents a specific element in the proposed formula and EPA responses are provided for each of these comment categories in part 5 of this notice.

3. Clarification on the Minimum State Allocation Amount
A clarification is added in this document regarding how the minimum state allocation is applied in the allocation formula as the description in the August 4, 2020 FRN did not contain a clear explanation of this process. The allocation formula will function by first reserving the one percent administration expense from the Federal appropriation. The remaining appropriation amount will then be applied to each state using the needs formula described in part 4 of this document. Adjustments will then be applied to ensure that no state entity receives an allocation below 0.5 percent. Any adjustments to raise states to this base allocation amount will be taken at a proportional basis from states that were above this base amount. Once adjustments are made to ensure that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the remaining amount (federal appropriation minus EPA administrative set-aside), this allocation will be considered the final state allocation for the applicable fiscal year.

4. Final Allocation Formula
The factors that determine CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs used in the final allocation formula will be those proposed in the August 4, 2020 FRN. In addition to the most recent CWNS, EPA chose further objective factors to help establish the infrastructure needs of each state, as permitted by CWA section 221(g)(2) and assigned weights to each of the factors in the allocation formula. The CWNS needs are weighted at 50 percent and the additional factors were weighted evenly to collectively account for the remaining 50 percent. The combination of the following factors forms the need allocation for each state:

 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey: This factor is included as the statute directs EPA to use the needs submitted pursuant to CWA section 516. Each allocation year, EPA will use the latest available CWNS data that provide a comprehensive assessment of CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater infrastructure needs. This factor represents 50 percent of the need allocation as these needs are directly identified in the survey.

 Annual Average Precipitation: This factor is included to account for the volume of annual precipitation a state receives which suggests the amount of stormwater runoff that needs to be managed. This factor represents 16.67 percent of the need allocation.

 Total Population: This factor is included to represent the proportional need of each state's population size acknowledging that higher populations generally have greater infrastructure needs. This factor represents 16.67 percent of the need allocation.

 Urban Population: This factor is included to represent the needs that urban centers have for CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater management due to high concentrations of impervious surfaces. This factor represents 16.67 percent of the need allocation.

The steps below outline the procedure to be used for allocating appropriated funds under section 221.

 Reserve one percent of the federal appropriation for EPA's administrative expenses per CWA section 221(h).
 Allocate the remaining amount (federal appropriation minus EPA administrative set-aside) based on a formula established to characterize the relevant funding needs of each state.
 Adjust the allocation proportions to ensure that no state entity receives an allocation below 0.5 percent. Any adjustments to raise states to this minimum allocation amount will be taken at a proportional basis from states that were above this floor amount. Once adjustments are made to ensure that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the remaining amount (federal appropriation minus EPA administrative set-aside), this allocation will be considered the final state allocation for the applicable fiscal year.

In following this methodology, the results for each state's allocation proportion are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: State Allocation Table____________________________________________________________ -  -  -  -  -
                                 State Entity
                             Allocation Percentage
                                    Alabama
                                     1.0%
                                    Alaska
                                     0.5%
                                American Samoa
                                     0.5%
                                    Arizona
                                     0.8%
                                   Arkansas
                                     0.7%
                                  California
                                     10.6%
                                   Colorado
                                     1.0%
                                  Connecticut
                                     2.2%
                                   Delaware
                                     0.5%
                             District of Columbia
                                     1.3%
                                    Florida
                                     2.7%
                                    Georgia
                                     1.5%
                                     Guam
                                     0.9%
                                    Hawaii
                                     0.5%
                                     Idaho
                                     0.5%
                                   Illinois
                                     2.7%
                                    Indiana
                                     3.1%
                                     Iowa
                                     0.8%
                                    Kansas
                                     1.2%
                                   Kentucky
                                     2.1%
                                   Louisiana
                                     1.4%
                                     Maine
                                     0.6%
                                   Maryland
                                     2.7%
                                 Massachusetts
                                     2.6%
                                   Michigan
                                     1.5%
                                   Minnesota
                                     0.7%
                                  Mississippi
                                     0.8%
                                   Missouri
                                     3.9%
                                    Montana
                                     0.5%
                                   Nebraska
                                     1.3%
                                    Nevada
                                     0.7%
                                 New Hampshire
                                     1.0%
                                  New Jersey
                                     5.7%
                                  New Mexico
                                     0.5%
                                   New York
                                     6.4%
                                North Carolina
                                     1.3%
                                 North Dakota
                                     0.5%
                               Northern Marianas
                                     0.8%
                                     Ohio
                                     7.0%
                                   Oklahoma
                                     0.8%
                                    Oregon
                                     1.5%
                                 Pennsylvania
                                     3.5%
                                  Puerto Rico
                                     0.9%
                                 Rhode Island
                                     0.9%
                                South Carolina
                                     0.8%
                                 South Dakota
                                     0.5%
                                   Tennessee
                                     1.5%
                                     Texas
                                     5.5%
                                     Utah
                                     0.5%
                                    Vermont
                                     0.5%
                                Virgin Islands
                                     0.5%
                                   Virginia
                                     2.1%
                                  Washington
                                     1.8%
                                 West Virginia
                                     1.3%
                                   Wisconsin
                                     1.8%
                                    Wyoming
                                     0.5%

5. EPA Response to the Comments Received

Comment Category 1: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey

The use of the CWNS data in the proposed allocation formula received the highest number of comments. Several of the comments expressed support for assigning the greatest weighting factor of the formula to the CWNS dataset on CSO, SSO, and stormwater needs. These comments stated that the CWNS is the most comprehensive dataset for identifying wastewater infrastructure needs across the nation. One comment suggested that the CWNS weighting factor be raised from 50 to 75 percent. In addition to supporting the significant weighting factor for the CWNS in the formula, nearly half of the comments submitted stated that the latest CWNS data published in 2012 does not accurately represent current water infrastructure needs and should be updated. Many comments urged EPA to prioritize conducting a new CWNS that will collect the most accurate and timely data for use in the allocation formula. Some comments expressed concern that recently identified CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs would not be taken into consideration and that the 2012 CWNS survey is not reflective of the current need. Another comment requested clarification on whether the CWNS factor is comprised of just the CSO, SSO, and stormwater portions from the survey or the survey's results in its entirety.

      EPA Response 1: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey

      Determining infrastructure needs for CSOs, SSO, and stormwater management for all communities across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories requires an in depth review of the water infrastructure already in place as well as the volume of wet weather events each community needs to manage. In searching for such information, the CWNS is the most comprehensive collection of data that was designed to specifically review capital investment needs as determined by the states. Following the documented needs in the latest CWNS is also a requirement described in the statutory language authorizing this program. The robustness of the CWNS and the requirement to use this dataset are reasons why this information is used in the formula with a significant weight. Only CSO, SSO, and stormwater identified needs from the survey are proposed to be used in this formula.

      While EPA recognizes the utility of the CWNS in developing this allocation formula, the amount of time that has elapsed since the last survey was considered as well as the completeness of the available data. The most recent survey collected needs information in 2012 and data was not complete for every state, in part because the CWNS had not been previously used for allocating grant funds. Therefore, EPA elected to include other factors that could serve as a substitute for infrastructure needs. Even so, the CWNS data is the primary data source for this allocation formula and as future Needs Surveys are completed, EPA may revisit the structure of this allocation formula. EPA is currently developing the next CWNS to ensure that current needs are identified, collected, and used for making decisions on how to best manage water quality infrastructure.

Comment Category 2: Annual Average Precipitation

Several of the submitted comments presented different opinions on the annual average precipitation factor. Some suggested that this factor be increased in weight in the formula, while others suggested it be removed. Alternative weather metrics were suggested, including metrics to assess drought, municipal separate storm sewer system components, precipitation in urban settings, or storm event intensity. Another comment requested that snowfall be used in the formula.

      EPA Response 2: Annual Average Precipitation

      The primary purpose of this grant program is to address infrastructure needs related to CSO and SSO events, in addition to stormwater management needs across 56 state entities. One factor that has a direct influence on CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater management is the volume of precipitation an area receives in a given time interval. Because overflow events are largely correlated with precipitation and this data is readily available for all state entities, EPA included annual average precipitation in the allocation formula as it provides available data on the average volume of precipitation each state experiences. The precipitation data used in this allocation formula is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and does incorporate snowfall in addition to rainfall. If other relevant datasets were to be made available across all 56 state entities, such as precipitation impacting urban populations, EPA may revisit the allocation formula in the future.

Comment Category 3: Total Population and Urban Population

EPA received several comments regarding both population factors in the proposed formula. Some commenters suggested that the total population factor be eliminated and replaced with either of the following: an estimate of the cost of CSO, SSO, and stormwater infrastructure needs on a per capita basis; urban population alone; or on the number of CSO events in a state. Several other comments stated that lower population communities often lack the necessary funds for their stormwater needs and that the formula should take these communities into consideration. Another comment requested lowering both the total population and urban population weights. Comments also recommended using recent estimates on population rather than decennial data collected every ten years, as proposed.

      EPA Response 3: Total Population and Urban Population

      Using total state population as a factor in the OSG allocation mirrors the method the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) allocation was formulated. According to the Report to Congress on the Review of the Allotment of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund from 2016, "EPA considered the allotment adequate if it distributed the appropriated funds to most States proportional to their needs or population." This states that there are two measures to validate the accuracy of the CWSRF formula: 1) needs as determined in the CWNS; or 2) population determined by the Census. With precedent set by the CWSRF, if CWNS data is incomplete for assessing needs, then the next factor to consider would be total population. In assessing overflow and stormwater needs for the OSG formula, the most recent CWNS in 2012 had incomplete data for several states and therefore warrants the use of total population as a determining factor to supplement the needs identified in the 2012 CWNS. Since total population is positively correlated with infrastructure needs, this factor provides another way to assess relative needs by state and is considered valuable to incorporate into the formula.
      Decennial census data is the most accurate data available as it is based on a conducted survey. Population reports created in between decennial intervals are based on estimates which would not be appropriate to use for determining allocations of funds. In addition, consistent data is needed for all 56 state entities, which the use of the decennial data provides. The proposed allocation will be updated accordingly with each new decennial census.

Comment Category 4: Prioritization for Distressed Communities

Some of the comments received urged EPA to prioritize these funds for financially distressed communities as stated in the authorizing statutory language.

      EPA Response 4: Prioritization for Distressed Communities

      EPA is directed in CWA section 221(g) to develop the allocation formula based on CSO, SSO, and stormwater capital infrastructure needs by state. CWA section 221(b) provides direction regarding the priorities each state shall use for selecting project applicants. Section 221(b) is separate from the allocation criteria and instead instructs states how to select project applicants for these funds. One of the project selection priorities stated in section 221(b) is that a state shall give priority to applicants that are considered a financially distressed community which is determined by affordability criteria established by the state after considering factors outlined in section 221(c)(2). EPA developed the allocation formula solely based on infrastructure needs, leaving project selection to be determined by the state as the prioritization section directs. EPA will provide documentation to states to explain this process, however the final determination on which applicants and projects receive grant funding is left to the states.

Comment Category 5: Statutory Modifications

Several comments requested modification of authorizing statutory language. One comment requested that the statute be modified to make the affordability criteria specific for stormwater needs. Another comment suggested that prioritization language be changed to have two separate funding formulas, one for CSO and SSO needs and another for stormwater needs. One request was to change the statutory language from "grant" to "additional subsidization". Another comment requested that the CWSRF allotment formula be used in to determine this allocation.

      EPA Response 5: Statutory Modifications

      Modifications to statutory language in the CWA is beyond the scope of EPA. However, while the prioritization criteria are listed in the statute, states are given latitude on how to weight these criteria based on a particular state's needs. Additional Subsidization is a funding mechanism authorized to be used with loans made in the CWSRF program. The Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant program authorized under section 221 of the CWA is a distinct funding program from the CWSRF. The section 221 program will not be administering funds using a grant and loan vehicle, as the CWSRF operates, but instead will be awarding funds using a grant and subaward method. This grant and subaward vehicle operates in the traditional grant method where a state receives a grant after providing a cost share component. The state then uses this grant to provide subawards to applicants with eligible projects. Since this program is already being distributed as a grant, "additional subsidization" is not relevant.

Comment Category 6: Other Inquires

The remaining comments received do not fall under the above categories and are summarized in this section. A comment was submitted asking if adequate guidance for the states and municipalities will be provided on designing stormwater control measures. Another comment asked if maintenance would be an eligible use of program funds. One comment requested information whether impaired waters was a factor taken into consideration. A few comments made requests to post the complete data sources to be used to develop this allocation formula on the EPA website. Another comment requested that priority be given to projects that plan to integrate their NPDES permits for the purpose of efficient pollutant removal of CSO, SSO and Stormwater runoff for both point and non-point sources.

      EPA Response 6: Other Inquires

      EPA is required to follow the statutory authority when developing this allocation formula, which directs that the CWNS must be used along with other information deemed relevant by the Administrator to determine needs for CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater management. EPA cannot develop a formula to specifically favor one region or type of need over another. Implementation documentation will be provided for how the program will follow the statutory guidelines and EPA grant policies. Specific design of project types and measures is not a requirement for EPA in this program and grantees will have discretion to use their preferred project designs to match their needs consistent with the eligible list of activities for this program. In terms of operations and maintenance, this is not an eligible use for funds under this program as this activity does not fall under the program's authoritative intended uses of "planning, design, and construction" as stated in section 221 (a)(1). Once final, EPA will post on its website the sources of data used in the allocation formula.