[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11421-11423]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0071; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-05-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada, Auxiliary Power
Units

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain serial numbers of Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) PW901A
auxiliary power units (APUs) approved under Technical Standard Order
TSO-C77A and installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747-400 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by several events of high-
pressure turbine blade fracture leading to separation of the rear gas
generator case and release of high energy debris. This proposed AD
would require modifications of the rear gas generator case, exhaust
duct support, and turbine exhaust duct flanges. We are proposing this
AD to prevent separation of the rear gas generator case and release of
high energy debris, which could result in injury and damage to the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:
516-228-7330; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2012-0071;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-05-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 based on 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
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canada AD CF-2011-40, dated October 26, 2011 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    The PW901A Auxiliary Power Units have experienced several events
of High Pressure Turbine (HPT) blade fracture, some of which have
resulted in the separation of the rear gas generator case, exhaust
duct support, the turbine exhaust duct flanges and the release of
high energy debris. Subsequent investigation revealed the turbine
exhaust duct can separate under excessive load conditions resulting
from extreme engine distress such as HPT blade fractures.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    P&WC has issued Service Bulletin No. A16255R2, dated March 1, 2011.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These APUs have been approved by Canada, and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing
this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Canada, and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other APUs of the same type design. This proposed AD would
require modification of the APU rear gas generator case, exhaust duct
support, and turbine exhaust duct flanges.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 135 APUs installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $39,899 per APU. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,386,365.

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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed 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.

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
airworthiness directive (AD):

Pratt & Whitney Canada: Docket No. FAA-2012-0071; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NE-05-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) PW901A
auxiliary power units (APUs) approved under Technical Standard Order
TSO-C77A and installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747-400 series
airplanes. The affected APU serial numbers are PCE 900001 through
PCE 900776 inclusive.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by several events of high-pressure turbine
blade fracture leading to separation of the rear gas generator case
and release of high energy debris. We are issuing this AD to prevent
separation of the rear gas generator case and release of high energy
debris, which could result in injury and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD or the
first time any maintenance is done other than preventative
maintenance, whichever occurs first, modify the rear gas generator
case, exhaust duct support, and turbine exhaust duct flanges.
    (2) Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.B(3)(f) of Accomplishment
Instructions, and paragraph 4.A. of Appendix, of P&WC Service
Bulletin (SB) No. A16255R2, dated March 1, 2011, to do the
modifications.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

    APUs modified previously using P&WC SB No. A16255R1, dated
September 12, 2008, or P&WC SB No. A16255, dated December 12, 2007,
meet the modification requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mazdak Hobbi,
Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2011-40, dated October 26,
2011, and P&WC SB No. A16255R2, dated March 1, 2011, for related
information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 17, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-4448 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34857-34858]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4376-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Maryland; 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 Maryland (FEMA-4376-DR), dated July 2, 2018,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued July 2, 2018.

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 July 2, 2018, 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 Maryland resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the
period of May 27 to 28, 2018, 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 Maryland.
    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, Emily Breslin, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Baltimore and Howard Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Maryland 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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-15678 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


TECHNICAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION
                              OF APPLICATION FOR
                         AIR QUALITY PERMIT NO. 58409
             (SIGNIFICANT REVISION TO OPERATING PERMIT NO. 53592)
                 FREEPORT MCMORAN MIAMI INC.  -  MIAMI SMELTER
INTRODUCTION
       This Class I Significant Permit Revision No. 58409 (Revision to Permit No. 53592) is issued to Freeport McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI) for the implementation of various upgrades to the smelter emissions capture and control systems to better control facility emissions, and to increase the allowable annual throughput from 850,000 tons per year of New Metal Bearing Material (NMBM) to 1,000,000 tons per year.
       This revised permit incorporates all the permit revisions since issuance of operating Permit No. 53592
Company Information
Facility Name:		Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc.
                   Mailing Address:	P.O. Box 4444									Claypool, Arizona 85532
Facility Address:	5701 New Street
             				Miami, Gila County, Arizona 85532
Background
             In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a new 1-hour SO2 National Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  Ambient monitoring data around the Miami Smelter show that the portion of Gila County where the Miami Smelter resides does not meet the new 1‐hour SO2 NAAQS and is currently classified as "non-attainment" for that standard.  FMMI has proposed upgrades to the Miami Smelter emissions capture and control systems to better control SO2 emissions.
Attainment Classification
             Miami area is currently designated as a non-attainment area for Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and SO2 (1-hour, 75 ppb standard).
REVISION DESCRIPTION
       FMMI has proposed to implement upgrades to the Miami Smelter emissions capture and control systems to better control facility emissions and to increase the allowable throughput to 1,000,000 dry tons per year of New Metal Bearing Material (NMBM).  The changes are scheduled to be implemented during 2017.  The proposed changes are as follows:
Concentrate Storage
             Enclose the temporary on‐site concentrate storage piles with a tent or dome to reduce particulate matter emissions.
Bedding Plant
Add one new paddle mixer in parallel with the existing paddle mixer
Add three new paddle mixer feed conveyors and one new hopper

IsaSmelt(R) Furnace and Cooling Water System
Replace the existing 12 feet diameter vessel with 15 feet diameter vessel for increased throughput and reduced maintenance.
Shift the existing process off‐gas uptake hood to accommodate the larger furnace.
Change the cooling circuit for increased steam recovery.
Upgrade the IsaSmelt(R) furnace cooling water system to provide more intense cooling to extend refractory life.
Add a seal to the lance to reduce process fugitive emissions.
Install a new feed port hood to capture emissions from the IsaSmelt(R) furnace feed port, and route the emissions to the existing vent fume control system.
Replace tapping hoods to accommodate the larger furnace
Upgrade the oxygen line to meet the oxygen transport velocity specifications into the smelter for safety purposes, which reduces natural gas and blast air flows down the lance.
Converter Aisle
Reconfigure the roofline to improve capture of process fugitive emissions that currently exit through roofline monitors, and routing of the captured emissions to the new aisle scrubber before release through the integrated stack.
Install the new aisle scrubber with caustic for enhanced SO2 control.
Anode Furnaces and Utility Vessel
Add process gas hoods and mouth covers to each vessel to improve process gas capture and reduce process fugitive emissions;
Route process gases to an evaporative spray‐cooler and a new baghouse for control of particulate matter and metals emissions; and
Route the off gases from the new baghouse to the new aisle scrubber for SO2 removal.
Acid Plant
Replace the existing 4-pass converter bed to increase the capacity of double contact acid plant.
Other major process equipment changes include:
Replace final SO3 coolers;
Replace hot heat exchangers;
Replace hot re‐heat exchangers;
Replace intermediate absorption tower acid coolers and pumps;
Install new (third) cold gas blower; and
Upgrade cooling water and utilities as required.
Other Changes
Upgrade the vent fume Scrubber and acid plant tail gas scrubber to caustic use for enhanced control of SO2 emissions;
Add three new wet electrostatic precipitators (WESP) modules at the vent fume control system; and
Replace vent fume and tail gas stacks with taller stacks in accordance with Good Engineering Practices.
EMISSIONS
Potential Emissions
             Table-1 provides the summary of smelter facility potential emissions after the completion of the smelter upgrades:
               Table-1  -  Smelter Facility Potential Emissions
                                   Pollutant
                       Post-Project Potential Emissions
                               (Tons per year)*
                                      PM
                                     562.2
                                     PM10
                                     362.2
                                     PM2.5
                                     233.7
                                      SO2
                                     552.3
                                      NOX
                                     286.0
                                   Lead (Pb)
                                     5.17
                                      CO
                                     89.5
                                      VOC
                                     12.6
                                     H2SO4
                                     92.0
                                     CO2e
                                    98,852
             *Post-project potential emissions includes enforceable limits over the estimated calculations for PM, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX and Lead.
Basis of Emission Calculations
Particulate Matter
PM emissions for tail gas stack and vent fume stacks are based on extrapolations from 2011-2012 performance test data and prorating the emissions for increase in throughput to 1,000,000 tons/year.
Fugitive PM emissions from IsaSmelt(R), Electric Furnace, Converters and Anode Furnace are based on extrapolations from the year 2000 fugitive study data and prorating the emissions for increase in throughput to 1,000,000 tons/year.  Further, the following improvements will result in reduction of fugitive emissions:
Add a new feed port hood to capture process fugitive emissions from the IsaSmelt(R) furnace feed port, and routing the captured emissions to the existing vent fume control system.  -  expected reduction 53.6%.
Capture of process fugitive emissions from converters.  -  the capture system is expected to reduce emissions by 84.7%.
Capture of process fugitive emissions from anode furnaces.  -  the capture system is expected to reduce emissions by 90.5%.  Further, anode furnace baghouse with capture efficiency of 95% will result in reduction of particulate matter emissions.
Calculations for particulate matter emissions from fugitive dust sources (paved/unpaved roads) and storage piles wind erosion, emissions are based on AP-42 emission factors.
Non-fugitive particulate emissions from other sources (boilers, heaters, engines, and cooling towers) are based on AP-42/manufacturers' emission factors.  Emissions for emergency engines are conservatively estimated based on 500 hours of operation per engine per year.
SO2
Acid plant tail gas  - The emissions are based on operation of the caustic scrubber designed for 2.24 ppm SO2 concentration in the tail gas stack.
Vent fume stack- The emissions are based on operation of the caustic scrubber designed for 4.00 ppm SO2 concentration in the vent fume stack.
Aisle scrubber stack - Fugitive SO2 emissions from IsaSmelt(R), Electric furnace, Converters and anode furnace are based on the 2012 fugitive study and prorating the emissions for future throughput of 1,000,000 tons/year.  Emissions from converters and anode furnaces are captured by the capture systems and further controlled by the new aisle scrubber using caustic (designed for 1.00 ppm SO2 concentration).
Fugitive emissions from converter roofline  -  The emissions are extrapolated from the June 2012 roofline emissions study data.
SO2 emissions from other sources (boilers, heaters, engines) are based on AP-42/manufacturers' emission factors.  Emissions for emergency engines are conservatively estimated based on 500 hours of operation per engine per year.
NOX
NOX emissions from tail gas stack are based on extrapolations from performance test data and prorated emissions for 1,000,000 ton/year throughput, expected reduction in natural gas usage due to upgrade of oxygen line to meet the oxygen transport velocity specifications into the smelter for safety purposes (expected to reduce natural gas consumption), and reduction in NOX due to caustic scrubber in the tail gas stack (expected reduction: 25%).
NOX emissions from other sources (boilers, heaters, engines) are based on AP-42/manufacturers' emission factors.  Emissions for emergency engines are conservatively estimated for 500 hours of operation per engine per year.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW ANALYSIS
       Major modifications at existing major sources require New Source Review.  The proposed physical changes and changes in the method of operation therefore must be reviewed to determine if they would constitute a major modification. The current permit has an enforceable limitation of 850,000 tons per year on the throughput.  Therefore, an increase in throughput to 1,000,000 tons per year meets the definition of modification.
       A project is a major modification under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") and Nonattainment New Source Review ("NNSR") regulations only if it will cause both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase in a regulated pollutant. With respect to a particular pollutant, if the project will not cause a significant emissions increase, quantification of net emissions increase for that pollutant is not required.

	Table-2 below compares past actual emissions with post-project potential emissions.  The increase in post-project emissions for all pollutants is less than the significance level for all applicable pollutants.  Hence the project is not subject to new source review.

                                    Table-2
                                   Pollutant
                    Post-Project Potential Emissions (tpy)
                                  Past Actual
                          (Average of 2011 and 2012)
                                     (tpy)
                              Emission Increase/
                                   Decrease
                                      PM
                                     562.2
                                      563
                                     -0.8
                                     PM10
                                     362.2
                                      360
                                     +2.2
                                     PM2.5
                                     233.7
                                      229
                                     +4.7
                                      SO2
                                     552.3
                                     6383
                                    -5830.7
                                      NOX
                                     286.0
                                     251.0
                                      +35
                                     Lead
                                     5.17
                                     4.72
                                     +0.45
                                      CO
                                     89.5
                                     48.9
                                     +40.6
                                      VOC
                                     12.6
                                     8.65
                                     +3.95
                                     H2SO4
                                     92.0
                                     133.0
                                     -41.0
                                     CO2e
                                    98,852
                                    74,658
                                    +24,194
PERMIT EMISSION LIMITS
Considering the nature of emissions and potential variability of emissions from main process emission sources (acid plant tail gas stack, vent fume stack, aisle scrubber stack, and roofline fugitive emissions), the facility will be subject to emission limits in Table 3 below. Justification for the combined emission limit for SO2 is provided in Section V.B of this document.  The facility will be required to demonstrate compliance with these emission limits based on CEMS for SO2, continuous monitoring for roofline fugitives, addition of a NOx CEMS at the Tail Stack, and performance tests for particulate matter and lead.
                                    Table-3
                                   Pollutant
                               Emission Sources
                                Emission Limit
                               Averaging Period
                                      SO2
Acid Plant Tailgas stack
Vent Fume Stack
Aisle Scrubber Stack
                               128 tons per year
                             365-day rolling total

Acid Plant Tailgas stack
Vent Fume Stack
Aisle Scrubber Stack
Roofline Fugitives
                               477 tons per year

Bypass Stack
                               75 tons per year

                              Particulate Matter
Acid Plant Tail Gas stack
Vent Fume Stack
Aisle Scrubber Stack
Roofline Fugitives
                             PM: 364 tons per year
                            12-month rolling total

                            PM10: 287 tons per year

                           PM2.5: 221 tons per year

                                     Lead
Acid Plant Tail Gas stack
Vent Fume Stack
Aisle Scrubber Stack
Roofline Fugitives
                              5.17 tons per year
                            12-month rolling total
                                      NOX
Acid Plant Tail Gas stack
                               175 tons per year
                             365-day rolling total
             Emissions from other sources (boilers/heaters, engines, cooling towers, paved/unpaved roads, wind erosion from storage piles etc.) are based on AP-42/manufacturers' emission factors, and hence fairly conservative.
Justification for Proposed Emission Limits for SO2
             FMMI performed modeling analysis of SO2 to demonstrate compliance with 1-Hr SO2 NAAQS.  The modeling analysis was based on the following emission rates:
               * 128 tons per year for three main stacks (tail gas, vent fume and aisle scrubber stack),
               * 349 tons per year for roofline fugitive emissions, and
               * 75 tons per year for the bypass stack.
             These modeled emissions rates were used for developing the SO2 emission limits for FMMI.
             Considering the need of FMMI for operational flexibility, particularly a much larger range of potential variability associated with roofline fugitive emissions, ADEQ further performed numerous AERMOD runs to investigate the viability of establishing a combined emission limit for three main stacks emissions and roofline fugitive emissions.   The modeling analyses were conducted by altering the relative ratios of stack and roofline emissions but maintaining the collective emission limit of 477 tons per year (128 + 349 tons per year) constant.  The AERMOD runs indicated that any increase in stack emissions increased air quality impact, while any increase in roofline fugitive emissions resulted in equivalent or lower air quality impacts than those modeled by FMMI.   An extreme scenario assuming the total emissions of 477 tons per year are emitted through roofline predicted the lowest model concentration among all scenarios tested.  Even if the roofline potentially emits more than the 349 tons per year SO2 that FMMI modeled, the NAAQS can still be protected with the imposed combined emission limit of 477 tons per year for stacks and roofline fugitives.  In other words, offsetting any roof top fugitive increases with lower emissions from the stacks is protective of the NAAQS as long as the total emission limit of 477 tons per year is not exceeded.
             Based on the AERMOD modeling analyses, the following emission limits are proposed:
               * A combined emission limit of 128 tons per year for the three main stacks; and
               * A combined emission limit of 477 tons for the three main stacks and roofline fugitives.

ADEQ also establishes an individual emission limit of 75 tons per year for the bypass stack, to maintain its status as an intermittent source. NEW APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
IsaSmelt(R) furnace was constructed or modified after October 16, 1974 and therefore it is the only "affected facility" at FMMI subject to NSPS Subpart P.   Emissions from the IsaSmelt(R) furnace are currently vented to the acid plant tail gas stack.  Thus, in the current permit, only acid plant tail gas stack is subject to emission limitation of 0.065 percent by volume for sulfur dioxide (SO2) under NSPS Subpart P.
       	Some process fugitive emissions from the IsaSmelt(R) furnace will be captured and vented to the vent fume stack after upgrades are implemented.  Therefore, the NSPS Subpart P emission limitation of 0.065 percent by volume SO2 will become applicable to vent fume stack also.
Emissions from anode furnace are currently not captured.  On implementation of the proposed, the emissions from anode furnaces will be captured, and routed to a baghouse for control of particulate matter emissions.  The anode furnaces are, thus, subject to CAM requirements.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO OPERATING PERMIT NO. 53592
On implementation of the proposed project, the New Metal Bearing Material (NMBM) processing limit is revised to 1,000,000 tpy from existing 850,000 tons per year.  Also, monthly reporting requirement for NMBM is deleted. The Permittee is required to maintain records of daily monthly and rolling 12-month total of concentrate feed.

Particulate matter testing requirements are updated to include Method 5/Method 202/201A for monitoring of total particulate matter (filterable + condensable), PM10 & PM2.5.
Tail gas stack  -  Compliance with NOX emission limit for tail gas stack will be based on the addition of a new NOX CEMS.
Vent fume stack-Air Pollution Control requirements for ESPs are revised.  Requirements for maintaining the hourly average values for primary and secondary voltage, amperage are deleted as monitoring of power for ESPs, which is function of voltage and current is considered adequate.
Vent fume stack is now subject to an emission limitation of 0.065 percent by volume for sulfur dioxide (SO2) under NSPS Subpart P.  The revision also includes NSPS monitoring requirements using SO2 CEMS.
The revised permit includes new requirements for aisle scrubber stack for capture and control of fugitive emissions from converter aisle and anode furnace.  These include:
CAM requirements for anode furnace baghouse
Semiannual performance test requirements for PM and lead emissions from the aisle scrubber stack
SO2 CEMS requirements for the aisle scrubber stack
New SO2 CEMS requirements for bypass stack.
Monitoring of Fugitive Emissions from Roofline
             The Permittee is required to monitor the fugitive particulate matter, lead and SO2 emissions from the converters roofline.  The emission monitoring system for PM and lead shall be based on Method 14 and Method 5 (for PM)/Method 29 (for lead).  SO2 emissions shall be monitored by roofline emission monitors.  The system shall be developed in accordance with the enclosed concept plans, and in consultation with ADEQ.  The concept plans and clarification memo are attached to the TSD. The Permittee is required to submit a protocol for measurement of PM, lead and SO2 emissions at least 180 days before Project startup for ADEQ's approval.
Engines
The requirements for engines are revised due to replacement of some engines with new ones, and addition of new emergency engines.  Also, the requirement from NSPS Subpart IIII and JJJJ, and NESHAP requirements from Subpart ZZZZ are updated to include the most recent updates.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) limit of 29 lb/hr for NOX for IsaSmelt(R) emergency engine is deleted as the engine is replaced with a new engine with much lower NOX emissions (4.54 lb/hr).  This new engine is subject to NSPS Subpart IIII requirements.
Ambient Monitoring Requirements  -  requirements for the Miami Golf Course PM monitor are deleted as this is now done by ADEQ monitors.
AMBIENT AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS
       As per ADEQ modeling guidelines, modeling analysis is required for permit revisions where the increase in the potential to emit is greater than the permit exemption thresholds.

      Following table compares current permitted emissions from the facility with the future emissions from the facility:

                                    Table-4
                                   Pollutant
                       Current Potential Emissions (tpy)
                    Post-Project Potential Emissions (tpy)
                          Emissions Difference (tpy)
                                      PM
                                      764
                                     562.2
                                    -201.8
                                     PM10
                                      588
                                     362.2
                                    -225.8
                                     PM2.5
                                      436
                                     233.7
                                    -202.3
                                      SO2
                                    10,368
                                     552.2
                                    -9815.8
                                      NOX
                                      548
                                     286.0
                                     -262
                                      CO
                                     91.7
                                     89.5
                                     -2.2
                                      VOC
                                     12.7
                                     12.6
                                     -0.1
                                     H2SO4
                                      173
                                      92
                                      -81
                                      Pb
                                      150
                                     5.17
                                    -144.83
                                     CO2e
                                    110,051
                                    98,852
                                    -11199
       Since post-project emissions for all pollutants are less than the current potential to emit based on the current permit limits, no modeling analysis was necessary for any of the pollutants.  However, to demonstrate that the smelter facility's emissions would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the new 1-hour NAAQS standard, modeling was performed for SO2.
       FMMI performed dispersion modeling to determine if the facility's emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) after the smelter's expansion and enhanced control project will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2.  This chapter includes a discussion of air dispersion modeling methods and results.
Model Selection
             As outlined in Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard" (EPA's August 23, 2010 memo), the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the preferred model for single source modeling to address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the NSR/PSD permit programs.   AERMOD should be used unless the use of an alternative model can be justified, such as the Buoyant Line and Point Source Dispersion Model (BLP).
Modeling Fugitive Emissions from Ridge Vents
                   The fugitive emissions from ridge vents are one of the most significant sources in the FMMI facility.  Per Appendix W A.2, BLP is the EPA's preferred model for industrial sources where plume rise from stationary line sources (such as ridge vents) are important.  However, Appendix W recommends using BLP for simple terrain but the FMMI facility's surrounding areas have complex terrain features.
                   To handle such unique modeling problems associated with the ridge vents, the BLP model was used to estimate hourly line source final plume rise and sigma-Z and then apply the BLP-predicted final plume heights and sigma-Z in AERMOD with hourly volume source approach.  To do so, the BLP code was modified to calculate hourly predicted final plume rise values for each roofline vent with Sigma-z and save the results to an ASCII output file.  It should be addressed that the modification did not change the BLP's algorithms and thus its preferred status.
Modeling Other Sources
                   AERMOD was used for modeling all other sources, including three main stacks as well as other industrial sources.
AERMOD/AERMET Version
                   The most recent version of AERMOD and its meteorological data preprocessor AERMET is Version 13350.  However, EPA has identified several bugs within the program that need to be addressed.  In particular, the bugs found in AERMET Version 13350 could be significant.   Therefore, the AERMOD/AERMET Version 12345 was used to do the modeling analysis.  ADEQ reran the model with AERMOD Version 13350 and AERMET Version 12345 and determined that the new features added in Version 13350 will not affect the modeled concentrations for FMMI.
Source Inputs
             This section provides a discussion on source characterization to develop appropriate source inputs, including the treatment of intermittent sources, source configuration and source types, Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack heights, and urban/rural determination of the sources.
Treatment of Intermittent Sources
                   Per Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (EPA's March 1, 2011 memo), the reviewing agency, at their discretion, may exempt intermittent units from model requirements for 1-hour NAAQS under appropriate circumstances.  Currently ADEQ allows an exemption from 1-hour SO2 modeling for the emergency generators that operate up to 500 hours per year and no more than 100 hours per year for maintenance and readiness testing purposes.  As the FMMI's emergency generators fall into this category, emissions from the emergency generators were not modeled for 1-hour SO2.  However, these emissions were incorporated into the modeling analysis for the NAAQS for 3-hour SO2.
                   Upon reviewing the most recent three-year (2011-2013) bypass data FMMI provided, ADEQ has determined that the bypass events in the FMMI facility are frequent and the associated emissions are significant.  Therefore, the bypass emissions were incorporated into the 1-hour SO2 modeling.  As the time periods for bypass events are uncertain and cannot be specifically defined in the model, the bypass emissions were modeled based on the annualized hourly emission rate (average hourly emissions over the year) rather than the maximum hourly emission rate Per the EPA's March 1, 2011 memo.
Source configurations and source types
                   All stacks were modeled as point sources with maximum allowable emission limits.  The stack's parameters such as exit temperature, diameter, and exit velocity reflected those emissions levels.
                   Fugitive emissions from ridge vents were modeled as volume source with hourly release heights and vertical dimensions, which were derived from the BLP model.    One of the critical modeled inputs for the BLP model is the average line source buoyancy parameter.  To calculate this parameter, the 2013 roofline study data (temperature, flow rate, exit velocity) were reviewed and validated, and the physical dimensions were modified to reflect the actual dimensions after the project.
Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack heights
                   For all stacks, the proposed stack height is less than the corresponding calculated formula GEP height.  Therefore, stacks were modeled with actual heights.  Building downwash was evaluated using building and stack location and dimensions, and the EPA approved Building Profile Input Program Plume Rise Model Enhancements (BPIP-PRME).
Urban/rural determination
                   The FMMI facility area was determined as "Rural" based on the land use method in Appendix W.  The SO2 half-life for urban sources was not considered in the modeling analysis.
Meteorological Data
             This section provides a discussion on selecting and processing meteorological data for input into AERMOD and BLP.  The meteorological data files for BLP must be prepared separately because the AERMET output files do not support BLP.
Representativeness of Meteorological Data
                   Per Appendix W Section 8.3, the selection of data should be based on spatial and climatological (temporal) representativeness.  A meteorological tower located approximately 0.3 kilometers of the project site was selected as the most representative monitor.  In spite of complex winds in the facility's surrounding areas, meteorological data collected from this tower was determined to be representative of transport and dispersion conditions between the sources of concern and areas where maximum design concentrations are anticipated to occur.  Following the EPA's Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications, the site-specific data meet QA/QC and completeness requirements.
Meteorological Data for AERMOD
                   Four-years of site-specific data, in combination with concurrent surface data obtained from the Safford National Weather Service (NWS) site and Globe Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) site, and concurrent upper air radiosonde data obtained from the Tucson NWS site, were processed with the AERMET meteorological preprocessor.  The EPA's AERSURFACE tool was used to calculate surface characteristic parameters required by AERMET.  The use of four-years of site-specific data exceeds the EPA's recommendation of one year for site-specific data.
 Meteorological Data for BLP
                   There were two steps in processing meteorological data for input into BLP.  Based on surface data and radiosonde data as previously discussed, the EPA's MIXHTS program was first used to calculate twice daily mixing heights.  The EPA's Meteorological Processor for Regulatory Models (MPRM) then combined the twice daily mixing heights, site-specific meteorological data, and surface data, into an Industrial Source Complex (ISC) compatible meteorological file.  While the ISC model is not used anymore for regulatory purposes, BLP can utilize the ISC compatible meteorological file for model calculation.  Since MPRM does not allow any missing data, the missing data were substituted following appropriate procedures.
Receptor Network
             The receptor grid has a total coverage of 110 kilometers by 108 kilometers, covering the whole model domain.  The AERMAP terrain processor was used to process the National Elevation Data (NED) data to generate the receptor elevations and hill heights.
             A unique situation FMMI encountered was how to define the ambient air boundary, as Highway 60 passes through portions of the facility.  Following the EPA's interpretation of ambient air, receptors were placed along sections of Highway 60 within the facility.  Moreover, additional receptors were placed in the areas between Highway 60 and the property boundary where the public may access.
             The model was run twice to ensure that the maximum modeled concentrations were detected.  The first model run used all receptors within the model domain and the second model run used more dense receptors in areas showing potential for high concentrations as indicated by the results of the first model run.
Background Concentration
             FMMI has reviewed the most recent four years of monitoring data obtained from three monitors that are located in the facility's surrounding areas.  It was concluded from the monitoring data that the smelter operations dominate the ambient air quality measured at these monitors.  Per Appendix W Section 8.2, the determination of background concentrations should exclude values when the source in question is impacting the monitor.  Therefore, the data collected during the shutdown of smelter operations were used to calculate the background concentration of SO2.
Model Results
             The model results are presented in Table below.  The results indicate that the smelter's expansion and enhanced control project will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS for SO2.
                                           Table-5
                               Averaging Period
                       Modeled Concentration (ug/m[3])
                           Background Concentration
                                  (ug/m[3])
                        Total Concentration (ug/m[3])
                             SO2 NAAQS (ug/m[3])
                                    1-hour
                                     169.2
                                     23.3
                                     192.5
                                      196
                                    3-hour
                                     196.6
                                     23.3
                                     219.9
                                     1300
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

      AAAQG	Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guideline
      A.A.C.	Arizona Administrative Code
      ADEQ	Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
      BACT	Best Available Control Technology
      ADEQ	Compliance Assurance Monitoring
      CO	Carbon Monoxide
      CO2	Carbon Dioxide
      g/m[3]	Microgram per Cubic Meter
      NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standard
      NESHAP	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
      NSPS	New Source Performance Standards
      NOx 	Nitrogen Oxide
      NO2	Nitrogen Dioxide
      O3 	Ozone
      Pb	Lead
      PM	Particulate Matter
      PM10	Particulate Matter Nominally less than 10 Micrometers
      PM2.5	Particulate Matter Nominally less than 2.5 Micrometers
      PTE	Potential-to-Emit
      SO2	Sulfur Dioxide
      TPY	Tons per Year
      USEPA 	United States Environmental Protection Agency
      VOC	Volatile Organic Compound


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65816-65819]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20673]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0933; FRL-11004-02-R9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Placer County Air Pollution
Control District; General Permit Requirements, New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on two permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Placer
County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD or ``District'') portion
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are finalizing an
approval of one rule and finalizing a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the second rule. These revisions concern the District's
New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources
of air pollution under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'').
This final action stops all sanction and federal implementation plan
clocks started by our April 20, 2020 limited approval and limited
disapproval. This action also adds regulatory text to clarify that
Placer County is no longer subject to the Federal Implementation Plan
related to protection of visibility.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0933. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Po-Chieh Ting, EPA Region IX, 75

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 24, 2023, the EPA proposed approval of Rule 501 and limited
approval and limited disapproval of Rule 502, listed in Table 1, as a
revision to the California SIP.\1\ These rules constitute part of the
District's program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or
modified stationary sources under its jurisdiction. The rule revisions
that are the subject of this action represent an update to the
District's preconstruction review and permitting program and are
intended to satisfy the requirements under part D of title I of the Act
(``Nonattainment NSR'' or ``NNSR'') as well as the general
preconstruction review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act (``Minor NSR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 47409.

                                             Table--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rule No.                              Rule title                  Amended date     Submitted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
501................................  General Permit Requirements............          4/8/2021         10/6/2021
502................................  New Source Review......................         8/12/2021         10/6/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve Rule 501 and to issue a limited approval of
Rule 502 because we determined that Rule 501 complies, and Rule 502
mostly complies, with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposal
identified the following deficiencies in Rule 502:
    1. Rule 502 does not contain provisions to restrict permitting when
the EPA finds the SIP is not being adequately implemented in the area,
as required under CAA section 173(a)(4).
    2. The definition of the term ``Major Modification'' in Section 231
of the rule does not correctly apply the CAA section 182(c)(6)
requirements regarding aggregation of net emission increases and
incorrectly specifies use of potential to emit as the basis for
calculating emission increases.
    3. The rule does not contain the definition of ``Federal Land
Manager'' from 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xlii).
    4. The definition of the term ``Major Stationary Source--Sacramento
Air Basin'' in Section 229 of the rule does not specify a major source
threshold for ammonia, which is a PM2.5 precursor, as
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). Similarly, the definition of the term
``Major Modification'' in Section 231 of the rule is deficient because
it relies on the section 229 definition.
    5. The definition of ``Sacramento Valley Air Basin'' in Section 251
does not include a small area that is included in the federal
definition of the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Therefore, the rule is deficient because it does not apply the
PM2.5 NNSR program requirements to this area, as required
under CAA section 173.
    As described in our proposal, the EPA's final approval of Rule 501
and limited approval of 502 addresses our April 20, 2020 limited
disapproval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 85 FR 21777.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, no comments were submitted on our proposal.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted on our proposal. Therefore, as
authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is
finalizing approval of Rule 501 and limited approval of Rule 502. This
action incorporates the submitted rules into the California SIP and
replaces the versions of these rules previously approved into the
SIP.\3\ The approval of Rule 501 stops all sanction and federal
implementation plan clocks started by our April 20, 2020 limited
approval and limited disapproval action. In conjunction with the EPA's
SIP approval of the District's visibility provisions for sources
subject to the NNSR program as meeting the relevant requirements of 40
CFR 51.307, this action also revises the regulatory provision at 40 CFR
52.281(d) concerning the applicability of the visibility Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as it pertains to California,
to provide that this FIP does not apply to sources subject to review
under the District's SIP-approved NNSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As described in the EPA's July 24, 2023 proposed action, the
EPA previously issued a limited approval of Rule 501 on April, 20,
2020 (85 FR 21777) and previously approved Rule 502 on September 29,
2014 (79 FR 58263). See 88 FR 47409, 47410, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule
502. Our limited disapproval final action triggers an obligation on the
EPA to promulgate a FIP unless the State corrects the deficiencies, and
the EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the
final action. Additionally, because the deficiencies relate to NNSR
requirements under part D of title I of the Act, the offset sanction in
CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the designated ozone and
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Placer County 18 months after
the effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway
funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in the areas six
months after the offset sanction is imposed. Section 179 sanctions will
not be imposed under the CAA if the State submits, and we approve,
prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP revision that
corrects the deficiencies that we have identified in our final action.
The EPA intends to work with the District to correct the deficiencies
in a timely manner.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the rules
described in Section I of this preamble, which pertain to new source
review permit programs, and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR
52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this final action is finalizing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law.
    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is merely finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of state law as meeting
federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's
Health does not apply to this action.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice (EJ)
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider
EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here,
this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, 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:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (c)(389)(i)(B)(7) and (c)(441)(i)(B)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(595) introductory text; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(595)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (389) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (7) Previously approved on April 20, 2020, in paragraph
(c)(389)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(595)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 501, ``General Permit
Requirements,'' adopted on August 12, 2010.
* * * * *
    (441) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (4) Previously approved on September 29, 2014, in paragraph
(c)(441)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(595)(i)(A)(2) of this section: Rule 502, ``New Source Review,''
amended on August 8, 2013.
* * * * *
    (595) The following rules and additional materials were submitted
on October 6, 2021, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a
letter dated October 6, 2021.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Placer County Air Pollution
Control District.
    (1) Rule 501, ``General Permit Requirements,'' amended on April 8,
2021.
    (2) Rule 502, ``New Source Review,'' amended on August 12, 2021.
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(12) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.281  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (12) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-20673 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73323-73324]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0588]

International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products;
Guidance for Industry on Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal
Products: Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry (GFI #214) entitled
``Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products: Electronic
Standards for Transfer of Data'' (VICH GL35). This guidance has been
developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary
Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to
provide recommended standards to construct a single Adverse Event
Report (AER) electronic message to transmit VICH GL42 contents to all
member regions and Product Problem Reports (PPR) to FDA for veterinary
medicinal products. Please note that VICH GL42 has been harmonized in
GFI #188, ``Data Elements for Submission of Veterinary Adverse Event
Reports to the Center for Veterinary Medicine.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidance
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margarita Brown, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-240), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its
commitment to seek scientifically based, harmonized technical
procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the
goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in
technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies
in different countries.
    FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized
technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and
biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United
States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal
products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical
requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the
European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from
both regulatory and industry representatives.
    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives
from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency,
European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal
Products, FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health
Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the
Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
    Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering
Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New
Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand,
one representative from the government of Canada, one representative
from the industry of Canada, one representative from the government of
South Africa, and one representative from the industry of South Africa.
The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of
documentation, is provided by the International

Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also
participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

II. Guidance on Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data

    In the Federal Register of September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57060), FDA
published a notice of availability for a draft guidance document
entitled ``Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products:
Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data'' (VICH GL35). Interested
persons were given until November 14, 2011, to comment on the draft
guidance. FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance, and those
comments, as well as those received by other VICH member regulatory
agencies, were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance
announced in this document finalizes the draft guidance dated September
15, 2011. The final guidance is a product of the Pharmacovigilance
Expert Working Group of the VICH.
    In order to allow for electronic exchange of this information
between stakeholders, further specification of the field descriptors
and their relationships, including agreement on format of the
electronic message is essential. This VICH guidance document is
intended to provide recommended standards to construct a single
electronic message to transmit data elements for submission of AERs to
all member regions. The need to transfer and disseminate information
quickly, accurately and easily between Regulatory Authorities and
Marketing Authorization Holders on a worldwide scope is especially
pertinent to the notification and assimilation of information for
pharmacovigilance. Whereas the recommended definition of the
pharmacovigilance information has been set forth within the draft
guidance entitled, ``Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal
Products: Management of Adverse Event Reports (AER's)'' (VICH GL24),
and the final guidances entitled ``Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary
Medicinal Products: Controlled Lists of Terms'' (VICH GL30) and
``Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products: Data Elements for
Submission of Adverse Event Reports'' (VICH GL42), this guidance
defines recommended electronic standards for transfer of data. Please
note that VICH GL42 has been harmonized in GFI #188, ``Data Elements
for Submission of Veterinary Adverse Event Reports to the Center for
Veterinary Medicine.''

III. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised
to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
For example, the document has been designated ``guidance'' rather than
``guideline.'' In addition, guidance documents must not include
mandatory language such as ``shall,'' ``must,'' ``require,'' or
``requirement,'' unless FDA is using these words to describe a
statutory or regulatory requirement.
    The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this
topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may
be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of applicable
statutes and regulations.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in this guidance have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0645.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

VI. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28830 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19241-19243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8377]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region III

Maryland:
    Cecil County,                      240019  June 15, 1973,     May 4, 2015...........  May 4, 2015.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; April 4,
                                                1983, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Charles County,                    240089  March 30, 1973,    ......do *............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; June 5,
                                                1985, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Charlestown, Town of, Cecil        240021  February 20,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                November 17,
                                                1982, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Chesapeake City, Town of,          240099  December 5, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Cecil County.                              Emerg; October
                                                15, 1981, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Elkton, Town of, Cecil             240022  November 7, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 18,
                                                1980, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Indian Head, Town of,              240091  January 28, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Charles County.                            Emerg; October
                                                15, 1985, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    La Plata, Town of, Charles         240092  January 21, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 17,
                                                1985, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    North East, Town of, Cecil         240023  July 24, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; October
                                                15, 1981, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Perryville, Town of, Cecil         240024  April 23, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 1,
                                                1977, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Port Deposit, Town of,             240025  March 16, 1973,    ......do..............   Do.
     Cecil County.                              Emerg; February
                                                16, 1977, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Rising Sun, Town of, Cecil         240158  September 17,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg; May
                                                15, 1986, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
Virginia:
    Claremont, Town of, Surry          510158  February 26,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                October 16,
                                                1990, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Essex County,                      510048  March 15, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; December
                                                16, 1988, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Surry County,                      510157  March 25, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; November
                                                2, 1990, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Tappahannock, Town of,             510049  June 3, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Essex County.                              Emerg; August 4,
                                                1987, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.

            Region V

Indiana:
     Columbia City, City of,           180300  July 29, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Whitley County.                            Emerg; January
                                                5, 1979, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    South Whitley, Town of,            180301  October 2, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Whitley County.                            Emerg; August
                                                19, 1985, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Whitley County,                    180298  December 29,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1975, Emerg;
                                                April 1, 1988,
                                                Reg; May 4,
                                                2015, Susp.

           Region VI

Texas:
    Anahuac, City of, Chambers         480120  June 27, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 16,
                                                1981, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Baytown, City of, Chambers         485456  July 17, 1970,     ......do..............   Do.
     and Harris Counties.                       Emerg; July 1,
                                                1974, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Beach City, City of,               480121  August 8, 1979,    ......do..............   Do.
     Chambers County.                           Emerg; January
                                                19, 1983, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Chambers County,                   480119  July 10, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; June 15,
                                                1983, Reg; May
                                                4, 2015, Susp.
    Cove, City of, Chambers            481510  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    August 11, 2006,
                                                Reg; May 4,
                                                2015, Susp.
    Mont Belvieu, City of,             480122  August 1, 1979,    ......do..............   Do.
     Chambers and Liberty                       Emerg; August
     Counties.                                  16, 1982, Reg;
                                                May 4, 2015,
                                                Susp.
    Old River-Winfree, City of,        481637  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Chambers County.                           August 10, 1999,
                                                Reg; May 4,
                                                2015, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*......do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-08320 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P