[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43741-43745]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0468; FRL-9998-40-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Revisions to Regional Haze Plan and
Visibility Requirements in Infrastructure State Implementation Plans
for the 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2008 Ozone, and
2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Iowa's request on four actions regarding the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The four SIP actions relate to Iowa's
Regional Haze Plan and infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2012 PM2.5, 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), 2008 Ozone, and 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0468 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at telephone number (913) 551-
7588; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
    A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
    B. Infrastructure SIPs
    C. What are the prong 4 requirements?
    D. What is the EPA's analysis of how Iowa addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the the EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0468, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    On May 14, 2019, the State of Iowa submitted a request to revise
the State of Iowa's Regional Haze Plan, changing from reliance on the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; removing
EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for reliance on CSAPR for
certain regional haze requirements, converting EPA's limited approval/
limited disapproval of Iowa's Regional Haze Plan for the first regional
haze planning period to a full approval; and approving the states'
submissions addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) provision (prong 4) that prohibits emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect
visibility in another state of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submittals for
the 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, 2008 Ozone, and 2015 Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is
proposing approve these requests.

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit Regional
Haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal at Class I
areas, including a requirement that certain categories of existing
major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by
the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), adopted in 1999, states
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible''
sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area.\1\ Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than
BART.\2\ The EPA provided states with this flexibility in the 1999 RHR,
and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent
rulemakings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
    \3\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable

progress than BART in revisions to the RHR made in 2005.\4\ In those
revisions, the EPA amended its regulations to provide that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-
approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not
require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of the EPA's
determination that CAIR was ``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in
the CAIR region, including Iowa, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade
programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2
and NOX in designing their Regional Haze SIPs. These states
also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for
achieving reasonable progress. However, in 2008, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
remanded CAIR to the EPA, which it did without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by CAIR.\5\ On August 8, 2011, acting
on the D.C. Circuit's remand, the EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\6\
Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Iowa, that contributed to
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005).
    \5\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \6\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, the EPA could not fully approve Regional Haze SIPs to the
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the EGU BART requirement. On
these grounds, the EPA published in the Federal Register a limited
disapproval of Iowa's Regional Haze SIP on June 7, 2012, and
promulgated a FIP relying on CSAPR rather than CAIR, pending Iowa's
submission, and EPA approval of, a SIP revision that corrected the
deficiency.\7\ The EPA finalized a limited approval of Iowa's Regional
Haze SIP on June 26, 2012, as meeting the remaining applicable Regional
Haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 77 FR 33642, 77 FR 33653-77 FR 336554 (June 7, 2012).
EPA finalized limited disapprovals of fourteen states' regional haze
SIP submissions that relied on CAIR in this action, including
Iowa's.
    \8\ See 77 FR 38006. (June 26, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, the EPA also
amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a
CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR Federal
trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR
state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP
revision--qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that
pollutant.\9\ Since the EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states
covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs
or FIPs.\10\ Iowa is currently relying on the FIP published in the
Federal Register on June 7, 2012 to rely on CSAPR as a BART-alternative
for the covered BART-eligible sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
    \10\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012). EPA has approved Minnesota's and Wisconsin's SIPs
relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801,
34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August
7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to the EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR.\11\ The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the
United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was
remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance
with the high court's ruling.\12\ On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the
CSAPR budgets as to a number of states.\13\ The remanded budgets
include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season
NOX budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately
delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the
rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on
January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \12\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
    \13\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that changes to the scope of CSAPR's coverage could
potentially affect its 2012 determination that CSAPR is ``better than
BART,'' on November 10, 2016,\14\ the EPA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) explaining the Agency's
belief that the potentially material changes to the scope of CSAPR
coverage resulting from the D.C. Circuit's remand would not have
altered EPA's 2012 conclusion that CSAPR is ``better-than-BART,'' that
is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an alternative to
BART for EGUs covered by the trading programs on a pollutant-specific
basis. On September 21, 2017, the Administrator signed the final
action, ``Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of
Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas.'' \15\ In this
action, the agency removed Texas from the CSAPR annual NOX
and SO2 trading programs and affirmed the continued validity
of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets
the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for an alternative to the application
of source-specific BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 81 FR 78954 (November 10, 2016)
    \15\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed November 28,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2019, the State of Iowa submitted request to revise its
Regional Haze SIP to rely on its participation in the CSAPR annual
trading programs for NOX and SO2 to satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) with respect to
emissions of NOX and SO2 from electric generating
units, pursuant to the option provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (the
``CSAPR-better-than-BART'' provision).
    We are proposing to approve Iowa's submission as satisfying the
SO2 and NOX requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)
and (e) for BART-eligible EGUs subject to the CSAPR SO2
trading program and the annual CSAPR NOX trading program. We
are also proposing to convert the limited approval/limited disapproval
of Iowa's Regional Haze plan to a full approval. Finally, the EPA is
proposing to withdraw the FIP relying on CSAPR as a BART-alternative
for these sources.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. The EPA has historically
referred to these SIP submissions, which are made for satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements,
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an
infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the specific
NAAQS in question, as well as the provisions already contained in the
state's implementation plan at the time at which the state develops and
submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or
from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state
(prong 4).
    Through this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portion of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2010 1-hour NO2,
2010 1-hour SO2, 2008 Ozone, and 2015 Ozone NAAQS. All other
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided
below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to
the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.
1. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24 hour primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\).\16\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA no later
than September 21, 2009. Iowa submitted an infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 29, 2013. This
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 71 FR 200 (October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\).\17\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA no later
than December 14, 2015. Iowa submitted an infrastructure SIP submission
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 22, 2015. This proposed
action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, the EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\18\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to the EPA no
later than June 2, 2013. Iowa submitted an infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 28, 2013.
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS
for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\19\ States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to the EPA no
later than January 22, 2013. Iowa submitted infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on July 29, 2013.
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million.\20\ States were required to submit infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to the EPA no later
than March 12, 2011. Iowa submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS on January 17, 2013. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.070
parts per million.\21\ States were required to submit infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to the EPA no later
than October 1, 2018. Iowa submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2015
8-hour Ozone NAAQS on November 30, 2018. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    The prong 4 requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other State under part C of this subchapter to protect
visibility (which includes sections 169A and 169B). On September 13,
2013, the EPA issued Guidance on the Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (``2013 Guidance'').\22\ The EPA developed this
document to provide states with guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. The 2013 Guidance states that the prong 4
requirement may be satisfied by an approved SIP provision that the EPA
has found to adequately address contribution of that state's sources
that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The
2013 Guidance also states that the

EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Guidance on the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)''; Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may
satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an
approved Regional Haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning process include all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations
agreed upon through that process. A fully approved Regional Haze SIP
will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

D. What is the EPA's analysis of how Iowa addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?

    Each of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submittals (2008 8-hour Ozone,
2015 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour
SO2, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 2012 annual
PM2.5) relied on the State having a fully approved Regional
Haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, at the time of
those submittals, the EPA had not fully approved Iowa's Regional Haze
SIP, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original
Regional Haze plan on June 7, 2012. As detailed earlier in this
proposed action, the EPA is proposing to convert EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval of Iowa's Regional Haze plan to a full
approval because final approval of Iowa's SIP revision relying on CSAPR
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) would correct the deficiencies that led
to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's Regional
Haze SIP. With this proposed action, the EPA would then fully approve
Iowa's Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period. Because a state
may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved Regional Haze
SIP, the EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion
of Iowa's 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, 2006
24-hour PM2.5, 2012 annual PM2.5, 2008 8-hour
Ozone, and 2015 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submissions.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
state provided the Federal Land Managers the draft rule on Febuarary
28, 2019, providing until April 28, 2019, to receive comments and
received no comments. The state provided public notice of this SIP
revision on March 29, 2019, providing until April 29, 2019 to receive
comments and received no comments. The state held a public hearing on
April 29, 2019 and received no comments. In addition, as explained
above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to take the following actions: approve Iowa's
SIP submittal relying on CSAPR for certain Regional Haze requirements
in accordance with the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR
51.308(e)(4)); withdraw the FIP relying on CSAPR to satisfy those
requirements; fully approve Iowa's Regional Haze SIP for the first
planning period; and approve the prong 4 portions for each of the six
NAAQS identified above. We are soliciting comments on this proposed
action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.

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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 13, 2019.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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 Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``(51)'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or     State submittal
            revision               nonattainment           date        EPA Approval date        Explanation
                                        area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(51) Sections 110(a)(2)          Statewide........  1/17/2013; 7/28/   [Date of           This action approves
 Infrastructure Prong 4                              2013; 7/29/2013;   publication of     the following CAA
 Requirements for the 2006 Fine                      7/29/2013; 12/22/  the final rule     elements:
 Particulate Matter, 2012 Fine                       2015; 11/30/       in the Federal     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--
 Particulate Matter, 2010                            2018; 5/14/2019.   Register],         prong 4. [EPA-R07-OAR-
 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur                                          [Federal           2019-0468; FRL-9998-
 Dioxide, 2008 Ozone, and 2015                                          Register           40-Region 7].
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                           citation of the
                                                                        final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Revise Sec.  52.842 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.842  Visibility protection.

    The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are met
because the Regional Haze plan submitted by Iowa on March 25, 2008 and
supplemented on May 14, 2019, includes fully approvable measures for
meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule including 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX
and SO2 from electric generating units.
[FR Doc. 2019-18137 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                                                           POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date: 	October 23, 2014

SUBJECT:	Myclobutanil: Tier I Review of Human Incidents

PC Code: 128857
DP Barcode: D421958
Decision No.: 493824
Registration No.: NA
Petition No.: NA
Regulatory Action: NA
Risk Assessment Type: NA
Case No.: NA
TXR No.: NA
CAS No.: 88671-89-0
MRID No.: NA
40 CFR: NA
		              									Ver.Apr.08

FROM:	Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist
		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch
		Health Effect Division (7509P)
      	and
      Elizabeth Evans, Environmental Protection Specialist
		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	David Miller, Acting Branch Chief
		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO: 		Yvonne Barnes, Risk Assessor
		Risk Assessment Branch VI
		Health Effects Division (7509P)
			and
		Benjamin Askin, Chemical Review Manager
		Risk Management & Implementation Branch 1
		Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Summary and Conclusions

Based on the low frequency and low severity of incident cases reported for myclobutanil in both IDS and SENSOR-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation.  The Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and if a concern is triggered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.

Detailed Review

      I.	ACTION REQUESTED

This review is intended to fulfill our requirement to docket summaries of incident data that were reported to the Agency, as well as to ensure human incident data and the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) are part of the problem formulation phase of registration review. Reports of adverse health effects allegedly due to a specific pesticide exposure (i.e., an "incident") are largely self-reported and therefore, generally speaking, neither exposure to a pesticide or reported symptom (or the connection between the two) is validated or otherwise confirmed.  Typically, causation cannot be determined based on incident data.  However, incident information can be an important source of feedback to the Agency:  incidents of severe outcome, or a suggested pattern or trend among less severe incidents, can signal the Agency to further investigate a particular chemical or product. Observational epidemiology studies relate the risk of disease, e.g., cancer, and exposure to an agent such as a pesticide product in the general population or specific sub-groups like pesticide applicators.

	II.	BACKGROUND

Myclobutanil is a systemic fungicide.  Myclobutanil is used to control a broad spectrum of diseases in many perennial and annual crops, turf varieties, landscape ornamental plants, fruit trees, and vines.

For this evaluation, both the OPP Incident Data System (IDS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk-Pesticides (SENSOR), and the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) databases were consulted for pesticide incident data on the active ingredient myclobutanil (pc code: 128857).  The purpose of the database search is to identify potential patterns in the frequency and severity of the health effects attributed to myclobutanil exposure.  Myclobutanil is not included in the AHS, and therefore this study does not provide information for this report.

   III. RESULTS/DISCUSSION

         a. IDS (Incident Data System)

OPP's IDS includes reports of alleged human health incidents from various sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies, and individual consumers. Since 1992, OPP has compiled these reports in IDS.  IDS contains reports from across the U.S. and most incidents have all relevant product information recorded. Reports submitted to the IDS represent anecdotal reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated in the report.

IDS records incidents in one of two modules: Main IDS and Aggregate IDS:

         o Main IDS contains incidents resulting in higher severity outcomes and provides more detail with regard to case specifics.  This system stores incident data for death, major and moderate incidents, and it includes information about the location, date and nature of the incident.  Main IDS incidents involving only one active ingredient (as opposed to pesticide products with multiple active ingredients) are considered to provide more certain information about the potential effects of exposure from the pesticide.

         o Aggregate IDS contains incidents resulting in less severe human incidents (minor, unknown, or no effects outcomes). These are reported by registrants only as counts in what are aggregate summaries.

For the Main IDS, from January 1, 2009 to August 12, 2014, there were 5 incidents reported for the single chemical only in the database.  These incidents were classified as moderate severity.  The cases reported dermal, ocular, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological symptoms including tremors and muscle weakness.  More details regarding these incidents can be found in Appendix 1.  There were 6 additional incidents reported involving more than one chemical.  These incidents were also classified as moderate severity.

In Aggregate IDS, from January 1, 2009 to August 12, 2014, there were 105 incidents reported involving myclobutanil.  These incidents were classified as minor severity.  Overall, there are few incidents involving myclobutanil reported to IDS.

         b. SENSOR-Pesticides
The SENSOR-Pesticides database covers 11 states from 1998-2010, although reporting varies from state to state. Cases of pesticide-related illnesses are ascertained from a variety of sources, including: reports from local Poison Control Centers, state Department of Labor workers' compensation claims when reported by physicians, reports from State Departments of Agriculture, and physician reports to state Departments of Health. Although both occupational and non-occupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR-Pesticides focuses on occupational pesticide incidents, and is of particular value in providing that information.  The state coordinator at each of the 11 respective state Departments of Health conducts case follow-up activities such as obtaining medical records to verify symptoms and severity.  Using standardized protocol and case definitions derived from poison center reporting, the state SENSOR-Pesticide coordinator enters the incident information into the state-based system which is sent to NIOSH annually to be aggregated.

A query of SENSOR-Pesticides from 1998-2010 identifies 45 cases involving myclobutanil (pc code 128857); 14 cases stemming from 12 events involve a single active ingredient and were analyzed for this memo.  Thirteen single active ingredient cases were work-related; six of which involved exposure from landscape/ornamental applications.  Three cases were moderate in severity and 11 cases were low in severity.  The three moderate severity cases occurred in California, one was a handler exposure described as follows, "Spraying vineyards at night, opened a tank of fungicide and was exposed to vapors."  The other two moderate severity cases involved agricultural field workers but no further case detail was provided.  The moderate severity cases reported dermal and respiratory symptoms including upper respiratory pain/irritation.  Table 2 presents a summary of health effects reported for the 14 single active ingredient cases.

Table 2. SENSOR-Pesticides 1998-2009: Reported Health Effects for Myclobutanil Cases (N=14)

Health Effect
# of Times Reported
Dermal
7
Ocular
4
Respiratory
7
Gastrointestinal
4
Renal
0
Nervous System
4
Cardiovascular
0
                  * Cases may report multiple health effects

         c. National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC)
The National Pesticide Information Center or NPIC is a cooperative effort between Oregon State University and EPA which is funded by EPA to serve as a source of objective, science-based pesticide information and respond to inquiries from the public and to incidents. NPIC functions nationally during weekday business hours through a toll-free telephone number in addition to the internet (www.npic.orst.edu) and email.  Similar to Poison Control Centers, NPIC's primary purpose is not to collect incident data, but rather to provide information to inquirers on a wide range of pesticide topics, and direct callers for pesticide incident investigation and emergency treatment.  Nevertheless NPIC does collect information about incidents (approximately 4000 incidents per year) from inquirers and records that information in a database.  NPIC is a source of national incident information but generally receives fewer reports than IDS.  Regardless, if a high frequency is observed in IDS, NPIC provides an additional source of information to see whether there is evidence of consistency across national data sets or possibly duplication and additional information about the same incident(s).
From 2009 to June 30, 2014, 5 incidents were reported to NPIC involving myclobutanil. NPIC estimates a certainty index as to whether an incident (including reported symptoms) was either definitely, probably, possibly, or unlikely to have been caused by the reported exposure to a pesticide, or whether the incident was unrelated to pesticides or if the incident was unclassifiable.  Of the 5 reported incidents, 2 were reported as symptomatic and possibly related to the myclobutanil exposure, 1 case was classified as unlikely and 2 cases was unclassifiable. The two possible incidents were classified as moderate severity.  One case reported respiratory effect. He works on a farm with several different products on a daily basis and believes he could have inhaled any of them.  The other case applied a fungicide with myclobutanil to his yard.  He did not read the label directions or wear any protective clothing. He got the product all over himself and did not cleaned up for about 8 hours. The next day he developed a rash.
         d. Agricultural Health Study (AHS)
The AHS is a high quality, prospective epidemiology study evaluating the link between pesticide use and various health outcomes including cancer. The AHS includes private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses. If there are AHS findings relevant to a particular pesticide going through registration review, the Agency will ensure they are considered in the problem formulation/scoping phase of the process and, if appropriate, fully reviewed in the risk assessment phase of the process. The AHS includes information on use of 80 different pesticide active ingredients commonly used in agriculture.  Myclobutanil is not included in the AHS, and therefore this study does not provide information for this report.

   IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the low frequency and low severity of incident cases reported for myclobutanil in IDS, SENSOR-Pesticides, and NPIC there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation.  The Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and if a concern is triggered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.

                                  Appendix 1
Human Incidents
Chemical: Myclobutanil
PC Code: 128857

Incident Package Report
Incident Date
Location
Reg Number
Product Name
Exposure Severity
Incident Description
020658 - 00002
                                                                       3/7/2009
PITTSBURGH, PA
009688-00123-008845
SPECTRACIDE IMMUNOX MULTI-PURPOSE SPRAY CONCENTRATE
Moderate
A 59 year old male was spraying the product earlier today and the product dripped onto his arm and he inhaled some of the mist. He experienced hypertension, Diarrhea, and feeling "jittery."
020927 - 00002
                                                                       5/1/2009
HOWELL, NJ
009688-00165-008845
SPECTRACIDE IMMUNOX LAWN DISEASE CONTROL SYSTEMIC FUNGICIDE CONC
Moderate
A 45 year old female followed her husband using 2 bottles of product, moving the hose. She didn't smell anything but she experienced tightness and spasm in her chest and shortness of breath. Has been seen by several MDs, chest x-ray, prednisone, albuterol, several therapies listed.
024332 - 00004
                                                                       6/9/2012
MARIPOSA, CA
062719-00410
RALLY 40 WSP FUNGICIDE
Moderate
A 73 year old male has a vineyard that is suffering from mildew problems. He mixed the product with Sulphur on Saturday and used it on his vineyard. He was wearing goggles but still managed to get the mixture into his eyes. He showered that day and applied eye drops. The next morning his eyes continued to water and were bloodshot. He was evaluated by Ophthalmologist, and eyes were found to be irritated but no damage.
024441 - 00013
                                                                      7/14/2012
DELAND, FL
009688-00123-008845
SPECTRACIDE IMMUNOX MULTI-PURPOSE FUNGICIDE SPRAY CONCENTRATE FOR GARDENS
Moderate
A 54 year old female's husband sprayed the product on their lawn 1 week ago and caller walked across it with her bare feet while it was still wet. She experienced tremor pain and muscle weakness.
024582 - 00004
                                                                      9/14/2012
NORTH RIDGEVILLE, OH
009688-00123-008845
SPECTRACIDE IMMUNOX MULTI-PURPOSE FUNGICIDE SPRAY CONCENTRATE
Moderate
An adult female used the product for 1 hour and her hand was getting wet. She washed off skin with soapy water. She experienced spreading blisters/rash.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36501-36502]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

North East Wisconsin Hydro, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping
Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-2744-039.
    c. Date filed: February 28, 2013.
    d. Applicant: North East Wisconsin Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Menominee-Park Mill Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Menominee River in Menominee County, Michigan,
and Marinette County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Klabunde, Senior VP of Operations;
North American Hydro Holdings, LLC; P.O. Box 167; 116 N State Street;
Neshkoro, WI 54960;<PHONE_NUMBER> (Ext. 314).
    i. FERC Contact: Chelsea Hudock,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 23, 2014.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2744-039.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the

official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Menominee-Park Mill Project consists of two developments:
the Menominee Development and the Park Mill Development.
    The Park Mill Development consists of the following existing
features:
    (1) A 538.58-long concrete gravity dam that includes the following
segments (from south to north):
    (a) A 22-foot-high, 303.5-foot-long spillway with a crest elevation
of 607.0 feet mean sea level (msl), topped with flashboards providing a
crest elevation of 610.0 feet msl;
    (b) An 18-foot-long abandoned fishway and log sluice blocked with
wooden stop logs having a crest elevation of 610.0 feet msl;
    (c) A 168.58-foot-long spillway with seven 20-foot-wide by 11-foot-
high Tainter gates with a sill elevation of 598 feet msl and a top of
gate elevation 610 feet msl;
    (d) A 22-foot-high, 48.5-foot-long concrete gravity spillway with a
crest elevation of 607.0 feet msl, topped with flashboards providing a
crest elevation of 610.0 feet msl;
    (2) A reservoir with a normal operating elevation of 610.0 feet
msl, a surface area of about 539 acres, and a normal operating head of
16 feet;
    (3) Inlet works that consist of a 100-foot-wide concrete gravity
section with five 16-foot-wide Tainter gates having a sill elevation of
598 feet msl and a top of gate elevation 610 feet msl;
    (4) A 2,400-foot-long power canal that is created by an earthen
embankment with a 16 foot top width and a crest elevation of 613 feet;
    (5) A 138-foot-long stone and brick powerhouse at the downstream
end of the headrace canal with a total installed capacity of 2.375 MW
and a total combined maximum hydraulic capacity of 2,309 cfs,
consisting of:
    (a) One 300-horsepower (HP) Kaplan turbine connected to a 0.225-MW
generator,
    (b) two 800-HP Francis turbines each connected to a 0.420-MW
generator,
    (c) two 700-HP Kaplan turbines each connected to a 0.430-MW
generator,
    (d) one 465-HP Kaplan turbine connected to a 0.450-MW generator;
    (6) A 3-phase 3,000-kilovolt ampere (kVA), 0.48/24.9-kilovolt (kV)
step-up transformer;
    (7) A 4,430-foot-long, 24.900-kV transmission line from the Park
Mill transformer to its interconnection with Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation (WPSC); and
    (8) appurtenant facilities.
    The Park Mill Development consists of the following existing
features:
    (1) a 20-foot-long earthen embankment with a concrete core wall
connected to the concrete dam at the south end of the dam;
    (2) a 466.5-long concrete gravity dam that includes the following
segments (from south to north):
    (a) a 15-foot-long dam with a crest elevation of 598.5 feet msl;
    (b) a 24-foot-high, 293-foot-long spillway with a sill elevation of
582.0 feet, consisting of 12 20-foot-wide by 11-foot-high Tainter
gates;
    (c) a 150.5-foot-long overflow spillway with a crest elevation of
594.0 feet msl;
    (d) an 8-foot-long abandoned fishway blocked with wooden stop logs
having a crest elevation of 594.0 feet msl;
    (3) a reservoir with a normal operating elevation of 594.0 feet
msl, a surface area of about 143 acres and a normal operating head of
12 feet;
    (4) a 204-foot-long concrete and brick powerhouse integral with the
dam on the north side of the river with a total installed capacity of
2.240 MW and a total combined maximum hydraulic capacity of 2,622 cfs,
consisting of:
    (a) two 500-HP Kaplan turbines each connected to a 0.458 MW
generator, and
    (b) two 1,130-HP Kaplan turbines each connected to a 0.662 MW
generator,
    (5) a 3-phase 3,000-kVA 4.16/24.9-kV step-up transformer;
    (6) a 575-foot-long, 24.900-kV transmission line from the Menominee
transformer to its interconnection with WPSC; and
    (7) appurtenant facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to address the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in Item H above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process:
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Menominee-Park Mill Hydroelectric Project in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will
consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued
on June 23, 2014.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 23, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15078 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27060]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12224]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-79-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project

    On March 16, 2017, Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C (Florida
Gas) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-79-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Wekiva
Parkway Relocation Project (Project), and would relocate and replace
sections of the existing Florida Gas 12-inch-diameter and 26-inch-
diameter Sanford Lateral pipelines that conflict with construction of
the Florida Department of Transportation's Wekiva Parkway.
    On March 29, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA July 28, 2017
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline October 26, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would abandon in place and relocate 4.60 miles of 12-
inch-diameter Sanford Lateral pipeline and 3.16 miles of 26-inch-
diameter Sanford Lateral Loop pipeline in Lake and Seminole Counties,
Florida. The Project intent is to resolve conflicts between the
existing pipeline facilities and construction of the Florida Department
of Transportation's new State Road (SR) 429, Wekiva Parkway. Florida
Gas proposes to relocate the affected pipeline sections to new adjacent
right-of-way abutting the north side of existing SR 429 right-of-way.

Background

    On April 18, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Wekiva Parkway
Relocation Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received comments from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission, and one landowner. The primary issues raised by
the commentors are assuring that proper wildlife habitat surveys and a
Phase 1 Cultural Survey be conducted. Landowner comments were limited
to concerns about individual property use and impacts.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-79), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 7, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12224 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MemoTo:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208
From:	Michael Shelby, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-TCD
CC:	Michael Olechiw, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD
Date:	July 9th, 2021
Re:	Docket of Reference Materials (that are Copyrighted) for Energy Security (Chapter 3.2 in DRIA NPRM LDV)
Hello Michael

      Here are the copyrighted Reference materials used for the Energy Security section of Chapter 3.2 of the DRIA of the NPRM for the LDV rule.

The following Reference Materials are for the docket (see attachments in accompanying file).
 Greene, D. 2010. Measuring energy security: Can the United States achieve oil independence? Energy Policy 38, pp. 1614 - 1621.
 Bohi, D. and Montgomery, D. 1982. Social Cost of Imported and U.S. Import Policy, Annual Review of Energy, 7:37-60. Energy Modeling Forum, 1981. World Oil, EMF Report 6, Stanford University Press: Stanford 39 CA. https//emf.stanford.edu/publications/emf-6-world-oil.
 Plummer, J. (Ed.). 1982. Energy Vulnerability, "Basic Concepts, Assumptions and Numerical Results", pp. 13 - 36, Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
 Bohi, D. and Montgomery, D. 1982. Social Cost of Imported and U.S. Import Policy, Annual Review of Energy, 7:37-60.
 Broadman, H. 1986. "The Social Cost of Imported Oil," Energy Policy 14(3):242-252. Broadman H. and Hogan, W. 1988. "Is an Oil Import Tariff Justified? An American Debate: The Numbers Say `Yes'." The Energy Journal 9: 7-29.
 Hogan, W. 1981. "Import Management and Oil Emergencies", Chapter 9 in Deese, 5 David and Joseph Nye, eds. Energy and Security. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
 Leiby, P., Jones, D., Curlee, R. and Lee, R. 1997. Oil Imports: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs, ORNL-6851, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November.
 Parry, I. and Darmstadter, J. 2004. "The Costs of U.S. Oil Dependency," Resources for the Future, November 17, 2004. Also published as NCEP Technical Appendix Chapter 1: Enhancing Oil Security, the National Commission on Energy Policy 2004 Ending the Energy Stalemate - A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges.
 National Research Council. 2009. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.
  Nordhaus, W. 2007. "Who's Afraid of a Big Bad Oil Shock?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 38(2), pp. 219-240.
  Rasmussen, T. and Roitman, A. 2011. Oil Shocks in a Global Perspective: Are We Really That Bad. IMF Working Paper Series.
  Hamilton, J. 2012. Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic Growth. In Handbook of Energy and Climate Change. Retrieved from http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/handbook_climate.pdf
  Kim, D. 2012. What is an oil shock? Panel data evidence. Empirical Economics, Volume 43, pp. 121-143.
  Engemann, K., Kliesen. K. and Owyang, M. 2011. Do Oil Shocks Drive Business Cycles, Some U.S. and International Evidence. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Working Paper Series. No. 2010-007D.
  Ramey, V. and Vine, D. 2010. "Oil, Automobiles, and the U.S. Economy: How Much have Things Really Changed?", National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers, WP 16067 (June). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16067.pdf
  Baumeister C., Peersman, G. and Van Robays, I. 2010. "The Economic Consequences of Oil Shocks: Differences across Countries and Time," RBA Annual Conference Volume in: Renée Fry & Callum Jones & Christopher Kent (ed.), Inflation in an Era of Relative Price Shocks, Reserve Bank of Australia.
  Kilian, L. and Vigfusson, R. 2014. "The role of oil price shocks in causing U.S. recessions," CFS Working Paper Series 460, Center for Financial Studies.
  Kilian, L. 2009. "Not All Oil Price Shocks Are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market." American Economic Review, 99 (3): pp. 1053-69.
  Cashin, P., Mohaddes, K., and Raissi, M. 2014. The Differential Effects of Oil Demand and Supply Shocks on the Global Economy, Energy Economics, 12 (253), DOI:10.1016/j.eneco.2014.03.014
  Krupnick, A., Morgenstern, R., Balke, N., Brown, S., Herrara, M. and Mohan, S. 2017. "Oil Supply Shocks, U.S. Gross Domestic Product, and the Oil Security Problem", Resources for the Future Report.
  Balke, N. and Brown, S. 2018. "Oil Supply Shocks and the U.S. Economy: An Estimated DSGE Model". Energy Policy, 116, pp. 357-372.
  Kilian, L. 2009. Not All Oil Price Shocks are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market, American Economic Review, 99:3, pp., 1053-1069.
  Kilian, L. and Murphy, D. 2013. "The Role of Inventories and Speculative Trading in the Global Market for Crude Oil", Journal of Applied Economics, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2322.
  Baumeister, C. and Hamilton, J. 2019. "Structural Interpretation of Vector Autoregressions with Incomplete Identification: Revisiting the Role of Oil Supply and Demand Shocks", American Economic Review, 109(5), pp.1873-1910.
  Mohan, S. 2017. "Oil Price Shocks and the U.S. Economy: An Application of the National Energy Modeling System". Resources for the Future Report Appendix.
  Uría-Martinez, R., Leiby, P., Oladosu, G., Bowman, D., Johnson, M. 2018. Using Meta-Analysis to Estimate World Oil Demand Elasticity, ORNL Working Paper.
  Oladosu, G., Leiby, P., Bowman, D., Uría-Martínez, R., Johnson, M. 2018. Impacts of oil price shocks on the U.S. economy: a meta-analysis of oil price elasticity of GDP for net oil-importing economies, Energy Policy 115. pp. 523 - 544.
  Newell, R. and Prest, B. 2019. The Unconventional Oil Supply Boom: Aggregate Price Response from Microdata, The Energy Journal, Volume 40, Issue Number 3.
  Bjørnland, H., Nordvik, F. and Rohrer, M. 2021. "Supply flexibility in the shale patch: Evidence from North Dakota," Journal of Applied Economics, February, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2808.
  Crane, K., Goldthau, A., Toman, M., Light, T., Johnson, S., Nader, A., Rabasa, A. and Dogo, H. 2009. Imported oil and US national security.  RAND, 2009. http://www.stormingmedia.us/62/6279/A627994.pdf.
  Koplow, D. and Martin, A. 1998. Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States. Greenpeace, Washington, DC.
  Moore, J., Behrens, C. and Blodgett, J. 1997. "Oil Imports: An Overview and Update of Economic and Security Effects." CRS Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division report 98, no. 1: pp. 1-14.
  Stern, R. 2010. "United States cost of military force projection in the Persian Gulf, 1976 - 2007." Energy Policy 38, no. 6. June: 2816-2825. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.013. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421510000194.
  Delucchi, M. and Murphy, J. 2008. "US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles." Energy Policy 36, no. 6. June: 2253-2264. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.006,
  Securing America's Energy Future. 2018. Issue Brief. The Military Cost of Defending the Global Oil Supply.
  Crane, K., Goldthau, A., Toman, M., Light, T., Johnson, S., Nader, A., Rabasa, A. and Dogo, H. 2009. Imported oil and US national security.  2009. RAND. http://www.stormingmedia.us/62/6279/A627994.pdf.
  Leiby, Paul N. 2008.  Estimating the Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports, Final Report, ORNL/TM-2007/028, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Rev. March 14.
  Leiby, P., Jones, D., Curlee, R., and Lee, R. 1997. Oil Imports: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs, ORNL-6851, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November.
  Cyberattack Forces a Shutdown of a Top U.S. Pipeline. New York Times. May 8th, 2021.


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33376-33379]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In May 2010,
there were seven applications approved. Additionally, 22 approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  1A158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: City of Los Angeles, California.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-LAX.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $855,000,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2019.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S:
    (1) Air taxi/commercial operators--nonscheduled/on-demand air
carriers, filing FAA Form 1800-31; and (2) large certificated air
carriers, filing Department of Transportation Form T-100, and enpianing
less than 2,500 passengers annually at Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at LAX.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Bradley West project.
    Determination: The FAA determined that approximately 6,628 square
feet of space identified by the public agency as being totally or
partially eligible was totally ineligible for PFC funding. In addition,
the proration of utility space must be recalculated to account for the
additional ineligible space.
    Decision Date: May 10, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Campbell/Gillette--Campbell County Airport
Board, Gillette, Wyoming.
    Application Number: 10-08-C-00-GCC.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $426,381.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S: Air taxi/
Commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Gillette--Campbell County Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Expand terminal parking lot.
Repair and maintain runway 16/34 pavement.
PFC administration.
Repair and maintain runway 03/21 pavement.
Repair and maintain taxiway A pavement.
Repair and maintain taxiway B pavement.

Repair and maintain taxiway C pavement.
Repair and maintain taxiway D pavement.
Repair and maintain taxiway E pavement.
Repair and maintain apron 1 pavement.
Repair and maintain apron 2 pavement.

    Decision Date: May 14, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York,
New York.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-EWR.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $191,631,217.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC'S: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers, filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR).
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, John
F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Laguardia Airport (LGA), and
Stewart International Airport (SWF) and Use at EWR At A $4.50 PFC
Level:

Security enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal
building frontages.
Multiple taxiway entrance construction.
Fire alarm upgrade.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal
building frontages.
Aircraft ramp expansion and hangar demolition.
Reconstruction of runway 13R/37L.

    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Rehabilitation of
runway 4/22.
    Brief Description Of Project Partially Approved for Collection at
EWR, JFK, LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Security
enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal building
frontages.
    Determination: After submission of the PEG application, the public
agency received an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant for partial
funding of this project. Therefore, the approved PFC amount was reduced
by the amount of the AIP grant.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection AT EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $3.00 PFC Level: Planning for a
centralized deicing facility.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection AT EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $3.00 PFC Level: PEG planning and
program administration.
    Decision Date: May 17, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Andrew Brooks, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York,
New York.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-JFK.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $255,794,990.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PEG'S: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers, filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at JFK.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal
building frontages.
Multiple taxiway entrance construction.
Fire alarm upgrade.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal
building frontages.
Aircraft ramp expansion and hangar demolition.
Reconstruction of runway 13R/37L.

    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Rehabilitation of
runway 4/22.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection at
EWR, JFK, LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Security
enhancement projects for the physical protection of terminal building
frontages.
    Determination: After submission of the PFC application, the public
agency received an airport improvement program (AIP) grant for partial
funding of this project. Therefore, the approved PFC amount was reduced
by the amount of the AIP grant.
    Brief Description of Project Approved For Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $3.00 PFC Level: Planning for a
centralized deicing facility.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR, JFK, LGA and SWF at a $3.00 PFC Level: PFC
planning and program administration.
    Decision Date: May 17, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Andrew Brooks, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Port Authority of New York And New Jersey, New York,
New York.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-LGA.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $121,561,393.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2011.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class Of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-Scheduled/
On-Demand Air Carriers, Filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at LGA.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security Enhancement Projects for the Physical Protection Of Terminal
Building Frontages.
Multiple Taxiway Entrance Construction.
Fire Alarm Upgrade.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security Enhancement Projects for the Physical Protection Of Terminal
Building Frontages.

Aircraft Ramp Expansion and Hangar Demolition.
Reconstruction of Runway 13R/37L.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Rehabilitation Of
Runway 4/22.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection at
EWR, JFK, LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Security
Enhancement Projects For The Physical Protection of Terminal Building
Frontages.
    Determination: After Submission of the PFC Application, The Public
Agency Received an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant for Partial
Funding of this project. Therefore, the approved PFC amount was reduced
by the Amount of the AIP grant.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $3.00 PFC Level: Planning for a
centralized deicing facility.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR, JFK, LGA and SWF at a $3.00 PFC Level: PFC
Planning and Program Administration.
    Decision Date: May 17, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Andrew Brooks, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey, New York,
New York.
    Application Number: 10-04-C-00-SWF.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $4,415,202.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S: Non-Scheduled/
On-Demand Air Carriers, filing FAA form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at SWF.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security Enhancement Projects for the Physical Protection of Terminal
Building Frontages.
Multiple Taxiway Entrance Construction.
Fire Alarm Upgrade.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $4.50 PFC Level:

Security Enhancement Projects for the Physical Protection of Terminal
Building Frontages.
Aircraft Ramp Expansion and Hangar Demolition.
Reconstruction of Runway 1 3r/37l.

    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Rehabilitation of
Runway 4/22.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection at
EWR, JFK, LGA, and SWF and Use at LGA at a $4.50 PFC Level: Security
Enhancement Projects for the Physical Protection Of Terminal Building
Frontages.
    Determination: After Submission of the PFC Application, the Public
Agency Received an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant for Partial
Funding of this Project. Therefore, the approved FEC amount was reduced
by the amount of the AIP grant.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection At EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at JFK at a $3.00 PFC Level: Planning for a
Centralized Deicing Facility.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at EWR, JFK,
LGA, and SWF and Use at EWR, JFK, LGA and SWF at a $3.00 PFC Level: PFC
Planning and Program Administration.
    Decision Date: May 17, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Andrew Brooks, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City Of Eugene, Oregon.
    Application Number: 10-10-C-00-Eug.
    Application Type: Impose And Use A Fec.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total FEC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,342,214.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Aircraft Rescue And Firefighting Station.
Runway 18r/34l Overlay/Rehabilitation.
Pavement Management Plan.
Security Enhancement.
Mitigate And Fill Ponds, Runway 34l.
Interactive Employee Training.
Taxiway Signs Replacement.
Passenger Breezeway Rehabilitation.

    Decision Date: May 18, 2010.
    For Further Information Contact: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendment to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-05-C-04-EWR Newark, NJ.......        05/07/10    $537,262,955    $537,262,955        03/01/11        03/01/11
09-06-U-01-EWR Newark, NJ.......        05/07/10              NA              NA        03/01/11        03/01/11
05-05-C-04-JFK New York, NY.....        05/07/10     613,926,100     613,926,100        03/01/11        03/01/11
09-06-U-01-JFK New York, NY.....        05/07/10              NA              NA        03/01/11        03/01/11
05-05-C-04-LGA New York, NY.....        05/07/10     400,697,004     400,697,004        03/01/11        03/01/11
09-06-U-01-LGA New York, NY.....        05/07/10              NA              NA        03/01/11        03/01/11
05-05-C-01-BPT Beaumont, TX.....        05/07/10         290,471         179,333        05/01/07        10/01/06
07-06-C-01-BPT Beaumont, TX.....        05/07/10         525,062         536,594        03/01/12        06/01/11
*09-05-C-01-ELP El Paso, TX.....        05/10/10      20,634,000      20,634,000        08/01/12        03/01/13
04-11-C-03-BNA Nashville, TN....        05/11/10      75,873,967      75,086,772        08/01/09        08/01/09
06-12-C-04-BNA Nashville, TN....        05/11/10      10,066,488      10,045,529        09/01/10        09/01/10
92-01-C-09-SJU San Juan, PR.....        05/12/10      45,027,956      45,868,477        05/01/97        05/01/97
97-01-C-01-RAP Rapid City, SD...        05/12/10       1,087,206         700,358        01/01/00        01/01/00
06-06-C-01-GEG Spokane, WA......        05/12/10      24,754,063      33,574,266        08/01/11        08/01/12
09-07-U-01-GEG Spokane, WA......        05/12/10              NA              NA        08/01/11        08/01/12
08-09-C-01-EUG Eugene, OR.......        05/13/10       4,450,000       2,400,000        12/01/11        07/01/10
05-05-C-01-MSO Missoula, MT.....        05/13/10       2,339,144       2,203,206        06/01/07        06/01/07

09-07-0-01-GCC Gillette, WY.....        05/21/10         433,172          33,341        11/01/11        06/01/09
01-08-C-03-PDX Portland, OR.....        05/24/10     551,230,600     551,230,600        05/01/16        05/01/16
05-09-C-01-PDX Portland, OR.....        05/24/10      68,207,251      68,207,251        03/01/18        03/01/18
97-10-0-04-CHO Charlottesville,         05/24/10         897,404         829,621        09/01/03        09/01/03
 VA.............................
99-13-U-03-CHO Charlottesville,         05/24/10              NA              NA        09/01/03        09/01/03
 VA.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per
  enplaned passenger to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. For El Paso, TX, this change is effective on August 1,
  2010.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 7, 2010.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-13983 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60165-60166]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4240-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

California; 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 California (FEMA-4240-DR), dated September
22, 2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 22, 2015.

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 September 22, 2015, 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 California resulting from the Valley Fire beginning on September
12, 2015, and continuing, 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 California.
    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 Individual 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 and
Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of California have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-25250 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P