[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48611-48615]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19203]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0420; FRL-9844-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska;
Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan and State
Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to approve a carbon
monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Fairbanks Area,
and associated revisions to sections of the Fairbanks Transportation
Control Program, submitted by the State of Alaska (the State) as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) dated April 22, 2013.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the
Act), the EPA is approving this SIP revision because it demonstrates
that the Fairbanks Area will maintain the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) through the second 10-year maintenance
period.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 8, 2013, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by September 9, 2013.
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0420, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0420. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public

docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at telephone number: (206)
553-1949, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax number: (206) 553-
0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Evaluation of Alaska's Submittal
IV. Transportation and General Conformity
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the purpose of this action?

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the CO LMP for the
Fairbanks Area, and associated revisions to sections of the Fairbanks
Transportation Control Program, submitted by Alaska as a SIP revision
dated April 22, 2013. The CO LMP submitted by the State of Alaska is
designed to keep the Fairbanks Area in attainment with the CO standard
for a second 10-year period beyond redesignation.
    The EPA is taking no action on 18 AAC 50.030, State Air Quality
Control Plan, which adopts by reference Volumes II and III of the State
Air Quality Control Plan and other documents (as a matter of state
law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the
EPA.

II. What is the background for this action?

    Under Section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, each CO area designated
nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as the
Fairbanks Area, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the Act, each
CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also
classified by operation of law as either ``moderate'' or ``serious''
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas
with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such
as the Fairbanks Area, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment
designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81. See
56 FR 56712 (November 6, 1991).
    On February 27, 1998, the EPA made a final finding that the
Fairbanks CO nonattainment area did not attain the CO NAAQS under the
CAA mandated attainment date of December 31, 1995 for moderate
nonattainment areas. As a result of that finding, which went into
effect on March 30, 1998, the Fairbanks CO nonattainment area was
reclassified as serious (63 FR 9945). Alaska had 18 months or until
October 1, 1999, to submit a new SIP demonstrating attainment of the CO
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31,
2000, the CAA attainment date for serious areas.
    Notwithstanding significant efforts by Alaska to complete the CO
SIP for the Fairbanks Area, the State failed to meet the October 1,
1999 deadline for the required SIP submission. On April 3, 2000, the
EPA published a notice in the Federal Register stating that initial,
mandatory sanctions would be triggered if a new attainment plan was not
submitted by October 2, 2001 (65 FR 17444). In March 2001, Alaska
submitted a request to the EPA for an extension of the attainment date
to December 31, 2001, and the EPA approved this request on May 25, 2001
(66 FR 28836). Alaska submitted an attainment plan on August 30, 2001
and the EPA approved the plan on February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5064). On July
5, 2002, the EPA determined that the Fairbanks Area attained the CO
NAAQS by the December 31, 2001 attainment date (67 FR 44769).
    The State of Alaska submitted a 10-year maintenance plan and
redesignation request for the Fairbanks Area on June 21, 2004. The EPA
approved this maintenance plan and redesignated the Fairbanks Area to
attainment on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44601). The State subsequently
submitted three revisions to the Alaska SIP relating to the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Fairbanks: a March
29, 2002 submittal containing minor revisions to the statewide I/M
program; a December 11, 2006 submittal containing more substantial
revisions to the statewide I/M program; and a June 5, 2008 submittal
containing major revisions to the statewide I/M program discontinuing
the I/M program in Fairbanks as an active control measure in the SIP
and shifting it to a contingency measure. The EPA approved these
revisions on March 22, 2010 (75 FR 13436).
    Per CAA section 175A(b), Alaska's current SIP submittal provides a
second 10-year CO maintenance plan for the Fairbanks Area. In addition,
the plan is consistent with the elements of a LMP as outlined in an EPA
October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph Paisie, the Group Leader of the
Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, titled, ``Limited Maintenance
Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''. To qualify
for the LMP Option, the CO design value for an area, based on the eight
consecutive quarters (2 years of data) used to demonstrate attainment,
must be at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hour CO NAAQS). The
EPA has determined that the LMP Option for CO is also available to all
states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update to the maintenance plans,
regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or lack
thereof. Thus, the EPA observes that although the Fairbanks Area was
designated as a serious nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS,
redesignation to attainment status in conjunction with meeting all
requirements of the October 6, 1995, memorandum, allows the State to be
eligible to submit a LMP as the update to its original maintenance plan
per section 175A(b) of the CAA.

III. Evaluation of Alaska's Submittal

    The EPA has reviewed Alaska's SIP submittal for the Fairbanks Area.
The following is a summary of the requirements for a LMP and the EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement has been met by the SIP submittal.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emission
inventory to identify a level of CO emissions in the area that is
sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The April 22, 2013 SIP

submittal contains a summary of the CO emissions inventory for the
Fairbanks Area for the base year 2005. This summary is based on the
Fairbanks emission inventory adopted by the State on April 4, 2008
(Volume III, Appendix IIIC.3) and includes updates made in 2012.\1\ The
emission inventory includes an on-road vehicle emission inventory based
on the EPA's MOVES 2010b \2\ vehicle emissions model, a more accurate
estimate of residential wood burning emissions in the Fairbanks area,
and an estimate of non-road emissions based on the most recent
information on snowmobile use in the Fairbanks Area. The methods used
to determine the Fairbanks CO emission inventory are consistent with
the EPA's most recent guidance on developing emission inventories.
Because violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on winter
weekdays, the inventory prepared is for a ``typical winter day''. The
table below shows the estimated tons of CO emitted per winter day by
source category for the 2005 base year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The memo dated November 20, 2012, to Cindy Heil of the State
of Alaska from Sierra Research titled ``Summary of Inventory
Revisions to the 2008 Fairbanks CO Maintenance Plan'', describing
the emissions inventory update is included in the docket.
    \2\ MOVES is the EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating
emissions from on-road mobile sources. MOVES 2012b is the latest
version of MOVES and was released in April 2012. Details on MOVES
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves.

         2005 Emission Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                  Main source category                       tons per
                                                            winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...........................................            3.09
Onroad Mobile Sources...................................           45.48
Non-road Mobile Sources.................................           14.80
Area Sources............................................           19.69
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................           83.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-
hour average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a
concentration of 9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS
in Fairbanks occurred in 1999, and monitored CO levels have been
steadily in decline ever since. The 2012 second highest 8-hour CO
concentration for the Fairbanks Area is 3.6 ppm, which is in attainment
with the CO NAAQS.
    For areas using the CO LMP Option, the maintenance plan
demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied when the second
highest 8-hour CO concentration is at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of
the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The second highest 8-hour CO
concentration for the Fairbanks Area for the most recent 8 quarters
(2011-2012) was 3.6 ppm, which is significantly below the LMP Option
requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the State has demonstrated that the
Fairbanks Area qualifies for the LMP Option.
    With the LMP Option, there is no requirement to project emissions
of air quality over the upcoming maintenance period. The EPA believes
that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent
of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in
the SIP, and Federal control measures already in place should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    To comply with national ambient air monitoring requirements, and to
better understand Fairbanks' air quality problems, the State of Alaska
has operated a CO monitoring network in the Fairbanks Area since the
1970s. In 1985, the Fairbanks monitoring network consisted of three
sites, including a downtown site called the Old Post Office site, which
recorded the highest concentrations of CO of all three monitors since
2004. In recognition of declining CO concentrations in the Fairbanks
Area, Alaska reduced the Fairbanks CO monitoring network to just the
Old Post Office site in 2009 with approval from the EPA.
    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the LMP must contain provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. The State of Alaska has an approved monitoring network that
includes CO monitoring in the Fairbanks Area that was most recently
approved by the EPA on October 25, 2012. In the Fairbanks CO LMP, the
State commits to maintaining a CO monitoring network to verify
continued attainment of the NAAQS.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. In its April 22, 2013 submittal, the State of
Alaska continued with the contingency plan that is currently in place.
The contingency plan includes six possible contingency measures that
could be implemented if the Fairbanks Area fails to attain the CO
NAAQS. These measures are:
    1. Increased public awareness;
    2. Enhanced public transit;
    3. Expansion of the supply of plug-ins;
    4. Altered signal timing;
    5. Roadway improvements; and
    6. Reintroduction of the Inspection and Maintenance program.
    In the event that monitoring data indicate that a violation of the
CO NAAQS has occurred, the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) would
examine the data to assess the spatial extent and severity of the
episode, as well as trends over time. Based on this assessment, the
FNSB in consultation with the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) would determine which of the above measures to
implement.

IV. Transportation and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs,
and projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result. Similarly, Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the ``budget test'' specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the
same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be
unlimited.

    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option
are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other
transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the
State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The EPA confers regularly with the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation System technical and policy committees, ADEC, the Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration to review the
Transportation Improvement Plan for the Fairbanks Area to determine if
the area is meeting the transportation conformity requirements under 40
CFR part 93, subpart A. The Fairbanks Area is currently meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

V. Final Action

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal CAA, the EPA is
approving the CO LMP for the Fairbanks Area (Volume II, Section
III.C.12 of the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted February 22,
2013) submitted by Alaska on April 22, 2013 as a revision to the Alaska
SIP because the State adequately demonstrates that the Fairbanks Area
will maintain the CO NAAQS and meet all the requirements of a LMP
through the second 10-year maintenance period. In this action, the EPA
is also approving the following revised sections of the Fairbanks
Transportation Control Program (Volume II, Section III.C): Air Quality
Emissions Data (Section III.C.3), Carbon Monoxide Network Monitoring
Program (Section III.C.4), Modeling and Projections (Section III.C.6),
and Air Quality Conformity Procedures (Section III.C.10); and the
following revised sections of the Appendices to Volume II of the
Fairbanks Transportation Control Program (Volume III): Section III.C.1
and Section III.C.10, all of which were included in the April 22, 2013
SIP submittal.
    The EPA is taking no action on any section related to 18 AAC
50.030, State Air Quality Control Plan, because the EPA takes action
directly, as appropriate, on the specific provisions in the State Air
Quality Control Plan that have been submitted by the State, so it is
unnecessary for the EPA to approve 18 AAC 50.030. The federally-
approved SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that
have been submitted by the State and approved by the EPA.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 8, 2013
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
September 9, 2013. If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received
will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule.
Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on October 8, 2013 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 the 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 8, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I 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 C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The EPA approves as a revision to the Alaska State
Implementation Plan, the Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance
Plan (Volume II, Section III.C.12 of the State Air Quality Control
Plan, adopted February 22, 2013) submitted by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation on April 22, 2013. In this action, the EPA
is also approving the following revised sections of the Fairbanks
Transportation Control Program (Volume II, Section III.C): Air Quality
Emissions Data (Section III.C.3), Carbon Monoxide Network Monitoring
Program (Section III.C.4), Modeling and Projections (Section III.C.6),
and Air Quality Conformity Procedures (Section III.C.10); and the
following revised sections of the Appendices to Volume II of the
Fairbanks Transportation Control Program (Volume III): Section III.C.1
and Section III.C.10, all of which were included in the April 22, 2013
SIP submittal.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-19203 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Memo to:   Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0218
Subject:  6-25-14 meeting with Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to discuss preparations for the July 10, 2014 consultation between EPA and the Tribe on EPA's current proposed regulation at 40 CFR 61
From:  Reid J Rosnick, Radiation Protection Division
Members of EPA:  Reid Rosnick, Tom Peake, Pat Childers, Jed Harrison, Angelique Diaz, Scott Patefield, Scott Jackson, Art Palomares
Ute Mt. Ute Tribe representatives: Scott Clow, Celine Hawkins, Colin Larrick, Mike Keller, Tomoe Natori

Scott Clow noted that the consultation is scheduled for July 10, 2014 beginning at approximately 9 am, MDT.  He will arrange for a conference call-in line. EPA noted that members of Region 8 will attend while members of ORIA will call in. The consultation will be about the proposed Subpart W rulemaking, but may dovetail into other areas the Tribe has discussed. For instance, if any time remains, we could discuss the off-site or alternate feed issues. It was noted that Region 8, the Tribe and the state of Utah will be holding a meeting in a month or so to discuss issuers related to enforcement and the off-site rule.
EPA, Scott and Celine discussed the questions/answers to be discussed during the consultation:
The meeting was then adjourned.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34567]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-65-000.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Revision to
Statement of Effective Rates to be effective 6/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/11/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>56.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-968-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 071218 Negotiated Rates--
Tenaska Marketing Ventures R-2835-19 to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-969-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 071218 Negotiated Rates--NJR
Energy Services Company R-2890-17 to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-970-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, EQT Energy, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waivers of Capacity
Release Regulations and Related Tariff Provisions, et al. of NextEra
Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-971-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20180712 Rate Schedules TF and
TFX and Misc Tariff Revisions to be effective 8/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-972-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Unauthorized Overrun Quantity
Filing to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-973-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Pioneer July 2, 2018) to be effective 7/13/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-974-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Market Area Pooling Area
Revisions and Other Tariff Changes to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180712-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-419-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing DECP--Liquefaction Project
Implementation (RP18-419) Compliance to be effective 4/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180713-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-975-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NCF Cleanup Filing--
Termination of NRG Canal K #510534 to be effective 8/13/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180713-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-976-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Update Filing
to be effective 8/13/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180713-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-977-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Broad Run Expansion Project--
Recourse Rate & Incremental Fuel and EPCR to be effective 8/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180713-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-978-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Broad Run
Expansion Project to be effective 8/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180713-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15555 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1000; FRL-      ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Amendments to the Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Portable Fuel

Containers

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.  This revision establishes and
requires the control of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
portable fuel containers.  EPA is approving this SIP revision in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA- R03-OAR-2007-1000.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67878), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland.  The NPR proposed approval
of the control of VOC emissions from portable fuel containers.  The
formal SIP revision was submitted by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) on June 18, 2007.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

Maryland’s amendments to the portable fuel containers rule incorporate
the changes to the 2007 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Model Rule for
portable fuel containers that was based on the changes adopted by
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in July 2006.  The amendments
address the fact that the original rule did not apply to kerosene
containers which were offered for sale in place of compliant portable
fuel containers.  Other amended incorporations include: modifying the
existing spout regulations in order to improve spillage control;
elimination of the fuel flow rate and fill level performance standards;
elimination of the automatic shutoff performance standard; new
containers must be certified for use and sale by the manufacturer
through CARB; and, new portable fuel container testing procedures to
streamline testing.  The amendments, which includes a one-year
sell-through period, apply to any person who sells, supplies, advertises
or offers for sale, or manufactures for sale portable fuel containers
and/or spouts.  Owners of portable fuel containers and/or spouts
purchased prior to the July 1, 2007 implementation date are not required
to purchase or replace the containers and/or spouts with newer compliant
fuel containers.  There are no manufacturers of portable fuel containers
in Maryland.

The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here.  On December 6, 2007, EPA received a comment
on its December 3, 2007 NPR.  A summary of the comment submitted and
EPA(s response is provided in Section III of this document.

III.  Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response

Comment:  The commenter expressed a concern that in New Jersey, the
container designs are not easy to use, especially for those who use
these containers only occasionally, and some people might defeat the
designs thereby eliminating any air quality benefits.  The commenter
asks if EPA would investigate whether the containers will really bring a
significant clean air benefit.

Response:  These amendments, submitted by the State of Maryland
concerning the control of VOCs from portable fuel containers, are being
considered by EPA, on the basis that they strengthen the existing
Maryland SIP.  There is no comparable Federal rule to reduce VOC
emissions from portable fuel containers.  The State of Maryland has
estimated that these amendments will result in an emission reduction
potential of 1.6 tons per day of VOC in the Baltimore nonattainment
area, and 6 tons per day of VOC statewide beginning in 2009.  The
commenter does not dispute that the Maryland portable fuel container
rule will reduce VOC emissions, but rather speculates that the emissions
reduction features of the fuel containers might be defeated by end-users
and asks EPA to investigate whether the rule will achieve “significant
clean air benefits.”  For purposes of approving this regulation as a
SIP-strengthening measure, EPA does not have to determine if the
emissions reductions from this regulation are or are not
“significant.”  EPA merely needs to determine if the rule will
generate some additional

reductions that would not be achieved by the current Maryland SIP.  The
commenter does not challenge that at least some amount of reductions
will occur due to the implementation of the

fuel container rule.

Section 110 of the CAA provides the statutory framework for approval/
disapproval of SIP revisions.  Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for
certain pollutants.  The CAA

establishes a joint Federal and State program to control air pollution
and protect the public

health.  States are required to prepare SIPs for each designated “air
quality region” within their borders.  The SIP must specify emission
limits and other measures necessary for that area to meet and maintain
the required NAAQS.  Each SIP must be submitted to the EPA for its
review and approval.  EPA will review and must approve the SIP revision
if it is found to meet the minimum requirements of the CAA.  See  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1  section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see
also, Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49
L.Ed.2d 474 (1976).

EPA has concluded that Maryland’s amendments concerning the control of
VOCs from portable fuel container meet the minimum criteria for
approvability.  Furthermore, to the extent that the fuel containers
achieve any emissions reductions at all, even reductions that are not
“significant,” this SIP revision will be more stringent than the
current Maryland SIP.

III.  Final Action

EPA is approving the control of VOC emissions from portable fuel
containers (COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>) as a revision to the Maryland SIP which
was submitted on June 18, 2007.  This regulation will result in the
reduction of VOC emissions from the affected sources.

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.  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 Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

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 (Public Law 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
Clean Air Act; 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).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to

each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C.  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 [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  This action pertaining to Maryland’s amendments to
the portable fuel containers rule may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

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

July 1, 2008
 _____________/s/______________

Dated:                            				Donald S. Welsh,
              								Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V( Maryland

2. In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the
entries for COMAR 26.11.13 [title] and <IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

( 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)* * *

       EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation

Title/subject

State effective date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100

          *            *               *              *              *
              *             *

COMAR 26.11.13	Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage
and Handling

           *            *               *              *              *
               *             *

<IP_ADDRESS>

Control of VOC Emissions from Portable Fuel Containers.

6/18/07

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

*	*	*	*	*

 Maryland is not at this time requesting EPA to approve a quantified
amount of VOC emission reduction from the enactment of its regulation.
Rather, this regulation has been submitted by Maryland, and is being
considered by EPA, on the basis that it strengthens the existing
Maryland SIP.  EPA will only review and approve a specific amount of
emissions reductions after receiving a proper request to do so from the
State of Maryland.

 PAGE

 PAGE  8

 PAGE  10


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66282-66288]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0988]

Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue;
Proceeds From Taxes on Aviation Fuel

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Policy Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action adopts an amendment to the FAA Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue published in the
Federal Register at 64 FR 7696 on February 16, 1999 (``Revenue Use
Policy''). This action confirms FAA's long-standing policy on Federal
requirements for the use of proceeds

from taxes on aviation fuel. Under Federal law, airport operators that
have accepted Federal assistance generally may use airport revenues
only for airport-related purposes. Local taxes on aviation fuel are
subject to airport revenue use requirements. State taxes on aviation
fuel (imposed by either an airport sponsor or a non-sponsor) are
subject to use either for a State aviation program or for airport-
related purposes. The statutory revenue use requirements apply to
certain State and local government taxes on aviation fuel, as well as
to revenues received directly by an airport operator. This document
formally adopts, through an amendment to the Revenue Use Policy, FAA's
interpretation of the Federal requirements for use of revenue derived
from taxes on aviation fuel.

DATES: This document is effective December 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall S. Fiertz, Director, Office of
Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this Policy and all other
documents in docket FAA 2013-0988 using the Internet by: (1) Searching
the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov/search;
(2) Visiting FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/; or (3) Accessing the
Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Compliance and Management
Analysis, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please make sure to identify the docket number,
notice number, or amendment number of this proceeding.
    Authority for the Policy Amendment. This Policy Amendment is
published under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part B,
chapter 471, section 47122, and the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994, Sec.  112(a), Public Law 103-305, 49 U.S.C.
47107(l)(1) (Aug. 23, 1994).

Background

    On November 21, 2013, FAA published a proposed amendment to its
policy on Federal requirements for the use of proceeds from taxes on
aviation fuel. (78 FR 69789, November 21, 2013). This action finalizes
the amendment of FAA's Revenue Use Policy. Under Federal law, airport
operators that have accepted Federal assistance generally may use
airport revenues only for airport-related purposes. The revenue use
requirements apply to the proceeds from certain State and local
government taxes on aviation fuel, as well as to revenues received
directly by an airport operator. This document formally adopts FAA's
interpretation of the Federal requirements for use of revenues derived
from taxes on aviation fuel. Briefly, an airport operator or State
government submitting an application under the Airport Improvement
Program must provide assurance that revenues from State and local
government taxes on aviation fuel will be used for certain aviation-
related purposes. These purposes include airport capital and operating
costs, and State aviation programs. The policy amendment applies
prospectively to use of proceeds from both new taxes and to existing
taxes that do not qualify for grandfathering from revenue use
requirements. For existing taxes that do not qualify for grandfathering
(which are State or local taxes on aviation fuel in effect on December
30, 1987), the FAA will allow for an up to three-year transition period
from the effective date of this document.
    The FAA invited public comment on the policy interpretation
question, in part due to the interests of sellers and consumers of
aviation fuel, and of State and local government taxing authorities on
limits on the use of proceeds from taxes touching aviation fuel. The
notice also solicited comments about whether there are other reasonable
interpretations of the statute as it relates to local taxes that were
not enumerated in the published notice of proposed clarification that
should have been considered by the FAA.
    The comment period for the notice of proposed clarification closed
on January 21, 2014. The FAA extended the comment period for thirty
days until March 3, 2014 (79 FR 5318, January 31, 2014) in order to
provide the public additional time to submit comments on the proposed
Policy amendment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain principles and criteria
that apply to regulations, legislative comments, and other policy
statements that have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States or on the
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Because States
have flexibility in designing general sales taxes subject to the
limited restriction on the use of aviation fuel tax proceeds, State
decisions will ultimately influence, regulate, and control
implementation of taxes, including those touching aviation fuel.
    While this final policy amendment does not impose substantial
direct requirement costs on State and local governments, this amendment
may have Federalism implications due to effects on the use of the
proceeds for taxes assessed on aviation fuel. FAA believes that the
Federalism implications (if any) are substantially mitigated because
the plain language of the statute at issue, 49 U.S.C. 47133, and the
detailed legislative history, reflect strong Congressional intent that
aviation fuel taxes be used for airport purposes and State aviation
programs.
    In compliance with the requirement of Executive Order 13132 that
agencies examine closely any policies that may have Federalism
implications or limit the policy making discretion of the States, FAA
engaged in efforts to consult with and work cooperatively with States,
local governments, and political subdivisions, including participating
in conference calls with representatives from the National Governors
Association, US Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State
Legislatures, National League of Cities, and National Association of
State Aviation Officials. In addition, FAA reached out to certain
states on an individual basis and interested trade groups including
Airlines for America; American Association of Airport Executives; and
Airports Council International--North America. Furthermore, we
published the proposed amendment for notice and comment, and received
comments from Kentucky, Iowa, and Georgia. This notice responds to
these comments.
    Through consultation, meetings and teleconferences as part of a
robust public engagement process, FAA has balanced the States'
interests in meeting its taxing obligations, and Congress' intent to
ensure that taxes on aviation fuel are expended for airport purposes.
By doing so, the FAA has complied with the requirements of Executive
Order 13132.

Comments Received on the Proposed Policy Amendment

    The FAA received 25 substantive comments on the proposals, from
airport operators; industry and nonprofit associations representing
airports, air carriers, business aviation

and airport service businesses; an air carrier; State government
agencies; and private citizens. This summary of comments reflects the
major issues raised and does not restate each comment received. The FAA
considered all comments received even if not specifically identified
and responded to in this notice.
    A majority of commenters supported the general purpose of the
policy (and the underlying statutes): using airport revenue for airport
purposes and using State and local aviation fuel tax revenue for
airport purposes or State aviation programs. Commenters representing
airlines and airport users all supported the FAA's proposed amendment
of the Revenue Use Policy regarding 49 U.S.C. Sec.  47107(b) and Sec.
47133. An air carrier expressed the position that there is no ambiguity
in the 1987 amendment to section 47107, and maintained that there are
no other possible correct interpretations of these statutes.
    The comments requesting a change in the proposed policy tended to
focus on several issues:
    1. The unfairness of holding airport operators responsible for the
actions of State and local government taxing authorities, particularly
non-sponsor governments.
    2. The intent of Sec.  47133 to require compliance by non-sponsor
State and local governments.
    3. Defining the portion of general sales taxes collected on
aviation fuel as an `aviation fuel tax,' and the administrative burden
of identifying the aviation fuel component of general taxes.
    4. Time allowed before full compliance with Sec.  47133 is
required.
    5. Clarifying that ``noise mitigation'' refers only to mitigation
of aircraft noise.
    6. How FAA will enforce Sec.  47133 with respect to jurisdictions
that are not parties to an AIP grant agreement.
    7. The proposal requires a federalism analysis under Executive
Order 13132.
    8. Suggestions for editorial changes to the proposed policy
language.
    1. Comment: Airport operators should not be held responsible for
State and local taxes outside of the airport operator's control.
    The majority of commenters, including all of the airport and
government commenters, argued that proposed new paragraph IV.D.2 would
unfairly hold airport operators responsible for the imposition of taxes
over which they had no control. Airport operators are typically local
governments, either cities or counties, or public airport authorities.
These local entities contend that they have no control over State and
local taxes, and therefore have no ability to eliminate a State or
local tax that is not in compliance with Federal requirements for use
of airport revenue. These commenters state that in many cases, an
airport operator does not have control over local taxes, if the airport
is located in a different jurisdiction than the operating government
entity. They note that port authorities and airport authorities may not
have any taxing power, and therefore have no ability to control even
local taxes on the airport.
    Beyond the complaint that this provision is unfair, the Airport
Council International--North America (ACI-NA) raised additional
objections to paragraph IV.D.2. First, 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) requires an
airport sponsor to provide an assurance that the airport will remain in
compliance with revenue use requirements. However, no local airport
sponsor could actually provide that assurance because the airport
sponsor has no ability to prevent a noncomplying State tax. Airport
sponsors would find it impossible to provide assurance that other
government agencies would comply with the revenue use statutes for the
life of an AIP grant. Further, sponsors should not be required to agree
to a condition that would subject the airport to sanctions with no
ability to correct the noncomplying condition. Second, ACI-NA argues
that holding airport sponsors responsible for State taxes is a
federalism issue, as ``an attempt to change the relationships'' between
Federal, and State and local governments. ACI-NA commented that the
proposal does not comply with Executive Order 13132 on federalism,
because the agency did not conduct a federalism analysis on the impacts
on State taxing authority and the relationship between State and local
governments and airport sponsors. The American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE) also suggested that the proposal may be in violation
of the reservation of State powers in the U.S. Constitution, and urged
FAA to conduct a federalism analysis of this proposal because of the
impact on State and local government relations.
    Response: Upon entering into an AIP grant agreement, an airport
sponsor does in fact provide assurances that local taxes on aviation
fuel will be in compliance with Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133, as
required by Congress. The grant assurances provided by airport sponsors
include Grant Assurance 25, which provides, in relevant part: ``All
revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel
established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the
capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or
other facilities which are owned and operated by the owner or operator
of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the
actual air transportation of passengers or property. . . .'' Moreover,
airport sponsors often can have influence on the taxation of aviation
activities in their States and localities, and the FAA expects airport
sponsors to use the influence they have to shape State and non-sponsor
local taxation to conform to these Federal laws.
    However, the FAA agrees with the majority of commenters that it
would be unfair to penalize airport sponsors for taxes imposed by
another entity. Thus, the FAA is revising paragraph IV.D.2 to
acknowledge the differences in taxes that are and are not controlled by
the airport sponsor, for purposes of grant compliance. For taxes within
the airport sponsor's direct control, the airport sponsor must comply
with the revenue use requirements of Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133.
Further, in instances of unlawful revenue diversion where the sponsor
is in control of the taxes, an airport sponsor can also be subject to
administrative action in which the Secretary may withhold amount from
funds that would otherwise be made available to the sponsor, including
funds that would otherwise be made available to a State, municipality,
or political subdivision thereof (including any multimodal
transportation agency or transit authority of which the sponsor is a
member entity) as part of an apportionment or grant made available
pursuant to Title 49. [See 49 U.S.C. 47107(n)(3).]
    For taxes imposed by non-sponsor State and local governments, the
airport sponsor will be expected to advise those entities of Federal
requirements for use of aviation fuel tax revenues, and to take action
reasonably within the sponsor's power to tailor State and local
taxation to conform to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and
47133. If a noncompliant tax is adopted by a non-sponsor State or local
government, notwithstanding the airport sponsor's advice and efforts,
the FAA would not take enforcement action against the airport sponsor
out of fairness to the sponsor who is not responsible for the
noncompliance. However, the FAA will pursue enforcement action pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 46301 or 47111 (f) against a non-sponsor State or local
government that violates the Revenue Use Policy or the limitations in
49 U.S.C. 47133. This is similar to the approach that the FAA has taken
to compliance with the obligation in grant assurance No. 21 to

maintain compatible land use around the airport.
    Accordingly, as revised, paragraph IV.D.2 will state that assurance
25 will be considered an enforceable commitment with respect to taxes
on aviation fuel imposed by the airport operator or owner itself; for
taxes imposed by non-sponsor State and local jurisdictions, an airport
sponsor will be expected to inform taxing authorities of Federal
requirements and take reasonable action within the sponsor's power to
influence State and local tax laws to conform to those requirements.
    The comments on federalism and federalism analysis are discussed
separately under Comment 7. With respect to the comment that the
proposal raises issues regarding the 10th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, the FAA appropriately presumes the constitutionality of
the statutes implemented by this policy.
    2. Comment: FAA should not enforce compliance by State and local
governments that are not airport sponsors.
    The Georgia Department of Law, on behalf of the Georgia Department
of Transportation and the Georgia Department of Revenue (GDOT/GDOR),
filed comments objecting to several elements of the proposed policy.
GDOT/GDOR commented that applying sanctions for violation of Sec. Sec.
47107 and 47133 to entities that are not airport sponsors is
``unprecedented and illogical.'' (The FAA notes that sanctions would
apply to non-sponsors under Sec.  47133 and Sec.  47111(f), whereas
Sec.  47107 is binding only on parties that have signed a grant
agreement with FAA.) GDOT/GDOR bases its argument primarily on the
observation that most FAA policy statements on revenue use and revenue
diversion refer to airport sponsors, and do not mention non-sponsor
entities.
    Response: It is true that FAA published policy on revenue use
refers to airport sponsors, but that fact alone does not deal with the
breadth of Sec.  47133, which imposes a federal statutory obligation on
certain non-sponsors. Also, contrary to GDOT/GDOR's comments, the FAA
has not been silent on this issue. In the few circumstances involving
the issue of a non-sponsor imposing a tax on aviation fuel, the FAA has
communicated a consistent message that compliance with Sec.  47133 is
required. The FAA letters to non-sponsors describing this obligation
are cited in the notice of proposed policy at 78 FR 69790-69691. Copies
of FAA's letters are posted in Docket No. FAA-2013-0988. The Federal
Register Notice also explained why FAA believed that there were
``compelling reasons'' for its past interpretations that support the
adoption of an amendment to the Revenue Use Policy. 78 FR at 69792.
    GDOT/GDOR argue that imposing sanctions (and therefore compliance)
on non-sponsor governments is both unfair and contrary to the logical
enforcement of the former Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
(AAIA), as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. 47101, et se. However, as
noted, Sec.  47133 imposes an obligation on entities that are not
airport sponsors. First, the language of Sec.  47133 (a) imposes a
limitation on the use of local taxes on aviation fuel, regardless of
whether the tax is imposed by a sponsor or non-sponsor. Second, Sec.
47133 (c) limits the use of State-imposed taxes on aviation fuel to
State aviation programs. Uses of tax revenues beyond these permissible
uses are a violation of Section 47133. Therefore, the obligation to
enforce compliance with the statute, using available sanctions for
noncompliance, is not only logical but is required as part of the FAA's
statutory responsibility for implementation of the AAIA.
    GDOT/GDOR's posits that there should be no sanction on a non-
sponsor government for violation of Sec.  47133. But that would be
contrary to the language of Sec.  47133 which makes no distinction
between sponsor or non-sponsor entities for purposes of the limitation
on the use of aviation tax revenues. Moreover, FAA's civil penalty
enforcement authority in 49 U.S.C. Sec.  46301 specifically authorizes
the imposition of civil penalties for a violation of Sec.  47133 and
does not exclude non-sponsors from its coverage. GDOT/GDOR's
interpretation would effectively mean that non-sponsor governments are
allowed to disregard the requirements of Sec.  47133 and render the
statutory requirement virtually meaningless.
    Importantly, Congress did not limit FAA's enforcement authority in
49 U.S.C. Sec.  47111 (f) to just airport sponsors, but rather
permitted judicial enforcement to restrain ``any violation'' of chapter
471--that includes the requirements of Sec.  47133--by any person for a
violation. ``Any violation'' encompasses violations by non-sponsors as
well as airport sponsors. This expansive authority is based on the
plain language of section, 47111(f), and supported by a review of the
legislative history and prior versions of the law under consideration.
These prior versions limited enforcement to the airport sponsor. See
140 Cong. Rec. S7139-02, 1994 WL 27189 (noting that under the bill,
``such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce obedience thereto by a
writ of injunction or other process, mandatory or otherwise,
restraining such airport sponsor from further violation of such section
or assurance and requiring their obedience thereto.'') However,
Congress ultimately expanded this authority by explicitly stating in
section 47111(f) that ``such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce
obedience thereto by a writ of injunction or other process, mandatory
or otherwise, restraining any person from further violation.''
(emphasis added)
    Given that the FAA interprets section 47111 and 47133 to obligate
non-sponsor State and local governments to use proceeds from aviation
fuel taxes for certain purposes, the FAA does not agree that the same
sanctions that apply to other aviation statutes would not apply to
Sec.  47133. Congress expressly provided for such sanctions by
including Sec.  47133 in the statutory provisions that can be enforced
by civil penalty in 49 U.S.C. 46301. In addition as noted, compliance
with Sec.  47133 by non-sponsor State and local governments may be
enforced by application to the U.S. district court for judicial
enforcement under 49 U.S.C. 47111(f).
    3. Comment: Defining the taxes on aviation fuel collected as part
of a general sales tax is not supported by legislation and would be an
administrative burden to State and local governments.
    The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) commented
that applying the revenue use requirements to generally applicable
taxes, such as sales taxes and taxes on all fuel products, is not
supported by the legislative history and incorrectly interprets
Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133. Both AAAE and GDOT/GDOR commented that
it would be difficult and costly for State and local governments and
taxpayers to segregate revenues collected on aviation fuel from the
rest of a general tax collection. The Franklin-Hart Airport Authority,
Georgia, expressed concern that redirecting some local taxes on
aviation fuel to the airport could lead those jurisdictions to reduce
other, non-tax support for the airport. The comment suggested that for
that reason the proposed policy could be a hardship for the airport,
but did not assert that the proposed amendment was incorrect. One
individual commented that an airport receives the same general benefit
as other taxpayers, and that general taxes on aviation fuel sales
should be retained by State and local governments to pay for these
general community services.
    Response: AAAE and one individual were the only commenters that

specifically objected to the proposed amendment that general taxes
collected on aviation fuel sales are ``taxes on aviation fuel.'' The
FAA's rationale for clarifying that general sales taxes also collected
on aviation fuels constitute ``taxes on aviation fuel'' is based on the
plain reading of the statute. The Airport and Airway Safety and
Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Pub. Law No. 100-223, amended the
airport grant revenue assurance provision to include, within the scope
of revenue retention, ``any'' taxes on aviation fuel. The 1994
recodification, which removed the word ``any'' from the statutory text
as recodified in 49 U.S.C. 47107(b), did not make any substantive
changes in the law. See Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1378:

    Certain general and permanent laws of the United States, related
to transportation, are revised, codified, and enacted by subsections
(c)-(e) of this section without substantive change as subtitles II,
III, and V-X of title 49, United States Code, ``Transportation''.
Those laws may be cited as ``49 U.S.C. __--''. Section 1.(a)

    Additionally, determining that the statute did not include general
taxes would permit States to tax aviation fuel as ``general'' taxes
without limit, and would be inconsistent with the purposes of the
revenue use statutes. The FAA continues to believe that applying the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133 to the portion of general
taxes collected on aviation fuel sales, in addition to aviation-
specific fuel taxes, is the most reasonable interpretation of those
statutes, and most consistent with the congressional intent of the
legislation on use of aviation fuel tax revenues. AAAE, which does not
represent local governments but whose membership, representing airports
and organizations that support the airport industry, has an interest in
this issue, and GDOT/GDOR commented on the burden of reporting fuel
sales as separate from other items taxed under the same ordinance.
    As explained more fully below, the FAA would permit a State a
reasonable amount of time to bring itself into compliance through an
``action plan,'' which takes account of the State's legislative
schedule, if necessary. And while we appreciate that there could be
some additional work required to track the amount of ``general'' tax
revenue attributable to aviation fuel, the FAA is charged with
implementing Sec.  47133, which does not carve out an exception for
revenue generated through a general tax. We believe that the FAA's
acceptance that a State will require time to bring itself into
compliance will afford the State sufficient time to develop a mechanism
for administering taxes in accordance with this policy.
    With respect to the comment that aviation fuel tax revenues should
support general government services, the FAA notes, first, that general
sales taxes of all other products and services at an airport other than
aviation fuel sales do go to support State and local general programs.
Also, where non-sponsor State and local governments provide services
directly to the airport, those jurisdictions can charge for those
services and be reimbursed from airport funds.
    4. Comment: The FAA should clarify the time line allowed for
jurisdictions imposing taxes that affect aviation fuel to come into
compliance with the policy.
    GDOT/GDOR requested a more definitive time for Georgia state
agencies and local jurisdictions to comply with the announced policy,
and specifically requested that the FAA provide at least 180 days from
the final policy effective date. GDOT/GDOR based this request on the
time required to set up tracking systems for aviation fuel sales, and
to amend State laws that mandate use of tax proceeds in a manner
inconsistent with the FAA policy. Airlines for America and the Air Line
Pilots Association filed joint comments urging that FAA limit any grace
period before compliance is required to 60 days, and that if
jurisdictions require more time, they can stop collecting the taxes
until the tax law is brought into compliance.
    Response: The notice of proposed policy amendment stated that FAA
would allow a reasonable time for noncomplying tax laws to be brought
into compliance with federal law. By this notice FAA is announcing a
formal amendment to its Revenue Use Policy; the policy underlying this
amendment may not have been followed previously by affected State and
local government non-sponsors--despite the existence of DOT/FAA's legal
opinions on this subject. The amendment we adopt today is a final
decision and amends FAA's Policy and Procedure Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue as set forth below. The amendment binds the FAA and the
Secretary of Transportation, as well as airport sponsors and non-
airport sponsors (including a State, a political subdivision of a
State, and a political authority of at least 2 States) covered by this
Policy.
    Therefore, after considering on this matter, the comments we have
received and the potential difficulties with requiring immediate
compliance, FAA has concluded that there is a need for all affected
entities to have sufficient time to come into compliance with the final
policy announced today. GDOT/GDOR itself requested additional time to
come into compliance with the policy. While comments were limited to
agencies of the State of Georgia and a few local jurisdictions in
Georgia, the FAA understands that other States may have laws that
require, or at least allow, proceeds of general taxes on aviation fuel
to be used for purposes other than airports or State aviation programs.
    The FAA further understands that changes to bring State and local
taxes into compliance may require State legislation. The Georgia
legislature meets each year from January through March. Accordingly, in
Georgia, the State and local taxes at issue could not practically be
amended until early 2015. A legislative season from January to March or
April is common to many other States as well. On this basis, the FAA
believes that State and local officials should prepare an action plan
to initiate the process to amend any non-compliant State laws and local
ordinances as necessary to conform to federal law on use of aviation
fuel tax revenues. The action plan should detail the process necessary
to develop reporting requirements and tracking systems for discrete
information on aviation fuel tax revenues. The plan may include a
reasonable transition period, not to exceed three years, during which
the FAA would agree, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion,
not to enforce the revenue use requirement against a non-sponsor State
or local government. State and local governments should submit an
action plan to the FAA within a year of the effective date of this
notice.
    Initiation of an action plan would provide State and local
governments sufficient time to plan for restructuring of general
revenues to adapt to the dedication of aviation fuel tax revenue to
airports and State aviation programs within a reasonable transition
period, not to exceed three years from the effective date of this
notice. Demonstration of an action plan detailing (1) a commitment to
undertake the legislative process; and (2) the timeframe for action
within the three year period, will demonstrate voluntary compliance
with federal obligations.
    5. Comment: The policy should make clear that ``noise mitigation''
refers only to mitigation of aircraft noise.
    The National Association of State Aviation Officials commented that
the reference to off-airport noise mitigation, as an acceptable use of
aviation fuel tax proceeds, should be revised to clarify that this
refers only to noise related to aircraft operation.

    Response: The definition of ``noise mitigation'' was not the
subject of the proposed amendment. While the phrase ``noise
mitigation'' in Section 47133 commonly refers to aircraft noise, we
decline here to reach whether the statute precludes consideration of
other sources of noise for mitigation purposes. In addition, we note
that the statute provides for use of airport revenues on and off
airport for noise mitigation purposes.
    6. Comment: FAA should clarify how it will require non-airport
sponsors to comply with the policy.
    The Iowa Public Airports Association requested clarification on how
parties that have not entered into a grant agreement with the FAA would
be required to comply with the federal requirements for use of aviation
fuel tax revenues.
    Response: The preamble of the notice of proposed policy noted that
there are two means of enforcing compliance with Sec.  47133 by non-
sponsor State and local governments: civil penalties, under 49 U.S.C.
46301(a), and application to the U.S. district court for judicial
enforcement under 49 U.S.C. 47111(f). While not an issue in Iowa,
States that have entered into block grant agreements with the FAA under
49 U.S.C. 47128 could also be subject to action for breach of that
agreement. The FAA agrees that the agency's enforcement process should
be described in the policy statement itself. Accordingly, new language
has been added to Section IX.E., Sanctions for Noncompliance, for this
purpose.
    7. Comment: The proposal affects the relationship between federal,
State and local governments, and therefore requires a federalism
analysis under Executive Order 13132.
    ACI-NA and AAAE commented that the proposal does not comply with
Executive Order 13132 on federalism, because the proposed policy is not
required by statute, and because the agency did not conduct a
federalism analysis on the impacts on State taxing authority and the
relationship between State and local governments and airport sponsors.
    Response: First, to the extent the comment referred to paragraph
IV.D.2 of the proposed policy, holding airport sponsors responsible for
taxation beyond their control, that issue is resolved by the changes to
paragraph IV.D.2 in the final policy.
    Second, the FAA does not agree that the proposed policy is not
required by statute. In the notice of proposed policy, the FAA analyzed
each of the key terms of the statute with reference to the legislative
intent of the revenue use legislation, to the meaning of the statute as
a whole, and to the consistent use of terminology throughout the AAIA.
Several commenters not only supported the FAA amendment, but commented
that no other interpretation of the statute was reasonably possible.
Even if an alternative interpretation of certain terms were
theoretically permissible, a policy interpreting the statute in a
manner that substantially undermined the legislative purpose of the
statute is not a viable option for the agency. Accordingly, the FAA
believes that the policy as adopted correctly implements the revenue
use legislation adopted by Congress. The policy is, therefore, required
by statute for purposes of the executive order. Because this policy
simply implements the explicit mandate set forth in section 47133, the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 and DOT's Guidance on Federalism
(July 21, 1988), are not triggered.
    Thus, although a federalism analysis of this policy is not required
by Executive Order 13132, the FAA did engage in efforts to consult with
and work cooperatively with States, local governments, political
subdivisions, and interested trade groups. Through consultation,
meetings and teleconferences as part of a robust public engagement
process, FAA has balanced the States' interests in meeting its taxing
obligations, and Congress' intent to ensure that taxes on aviation fuel
are expended for airport purposes or for State aviation programs
consistent with the mandate set forth in 49 U.S.C. 47133.
    In addition to that engagement process, the FAA also published the
policy amendment for notice and comment in the Federal Register,
soliciting comment from State and local governments, as well as other
interested parties. The only cost information submitted by any
commenter was received from the Franklin-Hart Airport Authority, which
expressed concern that redirecting some local taxes on aviation fuel to
the airport could lead those jurisdictions to reduce other, non-tax
support for the airport. However, the anticipated cost would result not
from the agency's policy itself, but from the expected actions of local
governments in reducing voluntary support for the airport.
    For the above reasons, the FAA finds that further analysis of the
adopted policy for federalism issues is not required by Executive Order
13132.
    8. Comment: The final policy should include certain grammatical and
style changes.
    Response: Delta Airlines and Airlines For America recommended
certain edits for grammar and clarity:
    Paragraph II.B.2: Clarify the phrase ``on or off the airport.''
    Paragraph IV.D.1: Clarify that only State aviation fuel taxes may
be used for State aviation programs.
    Paragraph IV.D.4.b: Clarify that Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133
apply to taxes on the use of aviation fuel.
    In each case the proposed edits more accurately describe the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  47107(b) and 47133 as stated in prior FAA
policy, and do not make any substantive change in the policy proposed
in the notice. Accordingly, the FAA has made the requested edits in the
final policy.

Final Policy

    For the reasons set out above, the FAA amends the Policy and
Procedure Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Federal Register at 64 FR 7696 on February 16, 1999, as follows:
    1. Section II, Definitions, paragraph B.2, is revised to read:
    State or local taxes on aviation fuel (except taxes in effect on
December 30, 1987) are considered subject to the revenue-use
requirements in 49 U.S.C. 47107 (b) and 47133. However, revenues from a
State tax on aviation fuel may be used to support a State aviation
program, and airport revenues may be used on or off the airport for a
noise mitigation purpose.
    2. In Section IV, Statutory Requirements for the Use of Airport
Revenue, renumber paragraphs D and E as paragraphs E and F, and add a
new paragraph D to read as follows:
    D. Use of Proceeds from Taxes on Aviation Fuel.
    1. Federal law limits use of the proceeds from a State or local
government tax on aviation fuel to the purposes permitted in those
sections, as described in IV.A. of this Policy. Proceeds from a tax on
aviation fuel may be used for any purpose for which other airport
revenues may be used, and proceeds from a State tax may also be used
for a State aviation program.
    2. Airport sponsors that are subject to an AIP grant agreement have
agreed, as a condition of receiving a grant, that the proceeds from a
State or local government tax on aviation fuel will be used only for
the purposes listed in paragraph 1. This assurance is considered an
enforceable commitment with respect to taxes on aviation fuel imposed
by the airport operator. For taxes on aviation fuel imposed by non-
sponsor State government and other local jurisdictions, airport
sponsors are

expected to inform taxing authorities of Federal requirements for use
of aviation fuel tax revenues and to take reasonable action within
their power to influence State and local tax laws to conform to those
requirements.
    3. The Federal limits on use of aviation fuel tax proceeds apply at
an airport that is the subject of Federal assistance (as defined in
Section II.b.2 of this Policy), whether or not the airport is currently
subject to the terms of an AIP grant agreement, and regardless of the
State or local jurisdiction imposing the tax.
    4. The limits on use of aviation fuel tax revenues established by
section 47107(b) and section 47133:
    a. Apply to any tax imposed on aviation fuel by either a State
government or a local government taxing authority whether or not acting
as a sponsor or airport owner or operator;
    b. Apply to any tax on aviation fuel, whether the tax is imposed
only on aviation fuel or is imposed on other products as well as
aviation fuel. However, the limits on use of revenues apply only to the
amounts of tax collected specifically for the sale, use, purchase or
storage of aviation fuel, and not to the amounts collected for
transactions involving products other than aviation fuel under the same
general tax law;
    c. apply to taxes on all aviation fuel dispensed at an airport,
regardless of where the taxes on the sale of fuel at the airport are
collected; and
    d. apply to a new assessment or imposition of a tax on aviation
fuel, even if the tax could have been imposed earlier under a statute
enacted before December 30, 1987.
    3. In Section IX, Monitoring and Compliance, add a new paragraph h.
to E.1 to read as follows:
    h. For a non-sponsor State or local government that fails to comply
with requirements for use of proceeds from a tax on aviation fuel, the
Secretary may assess a civil penalty as described in E.1.g, or apply to
a U.S. district court for a compliance order. In addition, for a State
government that participates in the State Block Grant Program under 49
U.S.C. 47128, the FAA may have additional sanctions for violation of
the State's commitments in its application for participation in the
program.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2014.
Randall S. Fiertz,
Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2014-26408 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26352]
[DOCID:fr09my07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-418-000]

Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC
(Sea Robin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 4, to become effective
June 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8850 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67533]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-129]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0802 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2014.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0802.
    Petitioner: Chevron USA, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 61.113(a) and (b); 91.103(b); 91.119;
91.121; 91.151(a); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a)
and (b)
    Description of Relief Sought: Chevron USA, Inc. is requesting an
exemption for commercial operation of its small unmanned aircraft
system for aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of controlled
access oil and gas facilities using the Skycatch UAS.

[FR Doc. 2014-26875 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P