[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36405-36407]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31205; Amdt. No. 3810]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 30, 2018. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125),
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:
* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AIRAC date             State             City               Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-Aug-18...............  IA            West Union.........  George L Scott Muni       8/0137      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  IA            West Union.........  George L Scott Muni       8/0138      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  LA            Mansfield..........  C E `Rusty'               8/0464      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig.
                                                              Williams.
16-Aug-18...............  LA            Mansfield..........  C E `Rusty'               8/0465      6/27/18  NDB RWY 18, Amdt 2.
                                                              Williams.
16-Aug-18...............  MN            Morris.............  Morris Muni-Charlie       8/0575      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1A.
                                                              Schmidt Fld.
16-Aug-18...............  MN            Morris.............  Morris Muni--             8/0577      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1A.
                                                              Charlie Schmidt
                                                              Fld.
16-Aug-18...............  NM            Albuquerque........  Albuquerque Intl          8/1022       7/5/18  RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 26, Amdt 1A.
                                                              Sunport.
16-Aug-18...............  NM            Albuquerque........  Albuquerque Intl          8/1023       7/5/18  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26, Amdt 2.
                                                              Sunport.
16-Aug-18...............  TN            Elizabethton.......  Elizabethton Muni..       8/1292       7/5/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Brunswick..........  Brunswick Golden          8/1305      6/27/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 10.
                                                              Isles.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Brunswick..........  Brunswick Golden          8/1306      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1A.
                                                              Isles.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Brunswick..........  Brunswick Golden          8/1307      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1.
                                                              Isles.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Americus...........  Jimmy Carter Rgnl..       8/1343      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Americus...........  Jimmy Carter Rgnl..       8/1344      6/27/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 1B.
16-Aug-18...............  NJ            Manville...........  Central Jersey Rgnl       8/1456      6/27/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3.
16-Aug-18...............  OH            Piqua..............  Piqua Airport--           8/1753      6/27/18  VOR RWY 26, Amdt 6B.
                                                              Hartzell Field.
16-Aug-18...............  NY            Kingston...........  Kingston-Ulster....       8/1772      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Naples.............  Naples Muni........       8/1781      7/10/18  RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Naples.............  Naples Muni........       8/1782      7/10/18  RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  NJ            Vineland...........  Kroelinger.........       8/2485       7/5/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  OH            Lima...............  Lima Allen County..       8/2919       7/5/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  MN            Crookston..........  Crookston Muni            8/2927       7/5/18  NDB RWY 13, Amdt 9.
                                                              Kirkwood Fld.

16-Aug-18...............  MN            Crookston..........  Crookston Muni            8/2928       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig.
                                                              Kirkwood Fld.
16-Aug-18...............  MN            Crookston..........  Crookston Muni            8/2929       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A.
                                                              Kirkwood Fld.
16-Aug-18...............  MN            Crookston..........  Crookston Muni            8/2930       7/5/18  VOR/DME RWY 13, Orig-A.
                                                              Kirkwood Fld.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Thomaston..........  Thomaston-Upson           8/3028      6/27/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 2A.
                                                              County.
16-Aug-18...............  IL            Mattoon/Charleston.  Coles County              8/3782       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A.
                                                              Memorial.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Fernandina Beach...  Fernandina Beach          8/3809       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2A.
                                                              Muni.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Fernandina Beach...  Fernandina Beach          8/3813       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1B.
                                                              Muni.
16-Aug-18...............  KS            Abilene............  Abilene Muni.......       8/3819       7/5/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  IA            Webster City.......  Webster City Muni..       8/3826       7/5/18  NDB RWY 32, Amdt 8.
16-Aug-18...............  WY            Jackson............  Jackson Hole.......       8/4092       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  IL            Morris.............  Morris Muni--James        8/4370       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1.
                                                              R Washburn Field.
16-Aug-18...............  IA            Harlan.............  Harlan Muni........       8/4397       7/5/18  GPS RWY 15, Orig-B.
16-Aug-18...............  IA            Harlan.............  Harlan Muni........       8/4408       7/5/18  GPS RWY 33, Orig-B.
16-Aug-18...............  TX            Hereford...........  Hereford Muni......       8/4517      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-A.
16-Aug-18...............  WI            Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-         8/4627      6/27/18  VOR RWY 14, Orig-D.
                                                              Truax Field.
16-Aug-18...............  IL            Springfield........  Abraham Lincoln           8/4856       7/5/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 2A.
                                                              Capital.
16-Aug-18...............  OH            Cadiz..............  Harrison County....       8/4975       7/5/18  VOR-A, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  GA            Americus...........  Jimmy Carter Rgnl..       8/5187      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  TX            Houston............  William P Hobby....       8/5265       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  NY            Westhampton Beach..  Francis S Gabreski.       8/5268       7/5/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 11.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Immokalee..........  Immokalee Rgnl.....       8/5921      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Immokalee..........  Immokalee Rgnl.....       8/5922      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Immokalee..........  Immokalee Rgnl.....       8/5924      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Immokalee..........  Immokalee Rgnl.....       8/5925      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1.
16-Aug-18...............  SC            Cheraw.............  Cheraw Muni/Lynch         8/6174       7/5/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A.
                                                              Bellinger Field.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Inverness..........  Inverness..........       8/6407       7/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-A.
16-Aug-18...............  IN            Valparaiso.........  Porter County Rgnl.       8/6943       7/9/18  ILS RWY 27, Amdt 3.
16-Aug-18...............  PA            Philadelphia.......  Wings Field........       8/6979      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  PA            Philadelphia.......  Wings Field........       8/6980      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1A.
16-Aug-18...............  PA            Harrisburg.........  Harrisburg Intl....       8/7378      6/27/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 1C.
                          FL            Orlando............  Executive..........       8/8391       7/9/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 24.
16-Aug-18...............  FL            Orlando............  Executive..........       8/8393       7/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2A.
16-Aug-18...............  MO            Bowling Green......  Bowling Green Muni.       8/8445       7/9/18  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2.
16-Aug-18...............  MO            Bowling Green......  Bowling Green Muni.       8/8453       7/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  MO            Bowling Green......  Bowling Green Muni.       8/8454       7/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  MS            Brookhaven.........  Brookhaven-Lincoln        8/8668      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig.
                                                              County.
16-Aug-18...............  NH            Keene..............  Dillant-Hopkins....       8/9189      6/27/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 4.
16-Aug-18...............  NH            Keene..............  Dillant-Hopkins....       8/9190      6/27/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig.
16-Aug-18...............  NH            Keene..............  Dillant-Hopkins....       8/9191      6/27/18  VOR RWY 2, Amdt 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-16139 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


VMTBY, O = Base year ozone season daily VMT GF = Growth factor EMFPY, O = MOBILE5.0 emissions factor, projection year ( 1996) ozone season CONV = Units conversion factor The effects of highway vehicle controls ( i. e., new vehic standards, enhanced I/ M, reformulated gasoline) will be r in the MOBILE5.0 emissions factors. The effects of program designed to reduce VMT ( e. g., TCM's such as employee trip reductions) should be reflected in the growth factor for VMT.

should be noted that these measures may also affect vehicle speeds which, in turn, will affect the motor vehicle emissions factors.

Highway vehicle projections should be completed at a desegregated level represented by vehicle type roadway class.

This is described in more detail in the motor vehicle inventory guidance. ( See reference 35.) The VMT growth factors should be developed based on the VMT forecasting guidance developed by EPA's Office of Mobile Sources ( 57 FR 9549, March 19, 1992).

Highway vehicle emissions projections can be completed within AMS. Period ( ozone season) projected emissions for 1996 are equivalent to the projection year emissions. The State should obtain additional information on the data requirements and format for AMS projection inventories and the interaction of MOBILE5.0 and AMS. This information is available in the AMS manuals referenced in the previous section. 74 Other Mobile Sources Emissions must and other nonroa controls are expe The 1990 emissions the expected growth i completed within AMS f area sources. The EPA's provide guidance on how to equipment and vehicles.

Emissions Preprocessor System The EPS may be used by the States year emissions. The EPS accepts wor contain information on base year emis equipment, control efficiency, RE, and season daily emissions should be used in requirements of the rate of progress plan.

The Control Emissions ( CNTLEM) module allows t simulate the effects of various control strateg emissions. The user supplies projection factors changes in activity levels ( operating rates) by 2 d the first 4 digits of the ASC. The user also suppli factors for CTG's, MACT, non CTG RACT, highway vehicle and other source or source category specific controls.

may also specify allowable emissions limits; however, the limits must be expressed as emissions rate limits ( tons per For the Current Controls Projection, the user should supply control information for measures currently in the SIP including CTG's, non CTG RACT, and existing I/ M programs. Motor vehicle factors ( which represent ratios of future year to base year MOBILE4.1 emissions factors) are created with a separate EPS utility ( MVADJ). Enhancements to EPS, scheduled for the end of January 1993, will include updating the EPS motor vehicle utility to MOBILE5.0.

For the Control Strategy Projection, the user should add CAAA mandated control measures and other control measures which the State wishes to test. In general, States will begin with the CAAA mandated measures and assess progress towards the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirement. If shortfalls in necessary reductions exist, additional control measures must be considered.

The EPS applies all controls as replacement technologies.

Base year uncontrolled emissions are calculated from base year actual emissions and the control parameters. Emissions are then projected by applying the projection factor ( or growth factor)

and the projection year control parameters. The end result is 75 MIS PY

EMIS BY  1  CE PY 100 RE PY 100 RP PY 100 1  CE BY 100 RE BY 100 RP BY 100  G ( 9) that emissi equation ( 3)

where: EMISPY = Projection year em pollutant/ time)

EMISBY = Base year emissions ( mass of pollutant/ time)

CEPY = Projection year control efficienc ( percent)

REPY = Projection year RE ( percent)

RPPY = Projection year rule penetration ( percent)

CEBY = Base year control efficiency ( percent)

REBY = Base year RE ( percent)

RPBY = Base year rule penetration ( percent)

GF = Growth factor ( dimensionless)

Since the controls treated as replacement technolo the projection year control efficiency used may actually than the base year control efficiency. In defining sourc category specific controls, the user should be aware of any individual sources within the category that are currently required to achieve a greater reduction. These should be inpu as source specific controls. The user should also ensure that multiple control strategies ( with the exception of CTG, non CTG RACT, and MACT strategies) are not applied to the same source.

This will lead to double counting of controls. For example, if the user specifies a RACT reduction of 50 percent and a discretionary control of 90 percent, CNTLEM will first apply the 50 percent control and apply an additional 90 percent reduction to the remaining emissions.

Allowable emissions for projection purposes are to be based on emissions factor or control efficiency limits in combination with expected activity. Allowable emissions limits must be input to EPS in terms of mass per unit time ( tons per day). The user must convert limits to emissions rate limits.

Since control efficiency is a valid input, permitted control efficiencies may be input for use in the emissions projections.

For sources using emissions factor limits, the emissions limit may be calculated using the detailed equations presented earlier.

The projection year emissions can then be input as the allowable emissions limit in EPS. These limits should be specified as 76 Ert

[ ( Eb  En)  ( 1  r) exp t] replacement the source w Refer to the fol instructions on E ! User's Guide for th User's Manual for the System 2.0, Part A: Cor Interface and Emissions Di 007D( R)], U. S. Environmenta of Air Quality Planning and S Triangle Park, NC. June 1992.

6.5 Effects of Equipment Replacemen Failure consider the effects of eq NSPS requirements for an affected facil stock, may result in development of a SIP emissions reductions than necessary to mee milestones or NAAQS attainment dates.

As an existing facility wears out and is replac equipment, it may become subject to a NSPS. To t requirements are more restrictive than present requ the existing ( not modified or reconstructed) facilit emissions will be reduced. The implications of such e reductions can be assessed using the following formula:

where: Ert = Emissions reductions in year t Eb = Emissions in the base year En = NSPS emissions r = Annual replacement rate for worn out capital stock t = Years from the base year Consequently, zero net growth emissions need not be the same as baseline; they might actually be less.

Failure to consider the effect of offset requirements may also result in emissions reduction requirements greater than necessary to meet rate of progress or NAAQS attainment dates.

As additions to the existing capital stock become subject to offset requirements greater than 1: 1, base emissions levels should decrease. Such emissions reduction consequences of offset requirements can be assessed using the following formula: 77 Ert

[ ( 1  Or)  Eb]  ( 1  g) exp t where: Ert = Emissio Or = Offset ratio Eb = Emissions in the b g = Annual growth rate t = Years from the base ye A State may use the foregoi the previously presented equa reductions that occur due to ne annual replacement rate for worn calculated using replacement rates categories provided by the Internal recent version of their Publication 5 preparation of income tax returns. ( See will have to determine the fraction of gr category that is due to major sources, whi at least the NSPS limit and which would have offsets. That fraction should be based on rep historical information ( ratios of major source growth) for the source category.

6.6 Submitting Projection Year Inventories and Suppor Submission of the projection year inventory to EPA must include:

! Hardcopy summary of emissions estimates.

! Documentation of methodology/ procedures.

! Emissions projections in computerized format.

The level of documentation necessary will depend to some extent on the procedures used in the emissions projections. For example, if growth factors from BEA or E GAS are used in the projections, required documentation would be limited to simply stating this, since these are EPA recommended sources for growth factors. If nonrecommended sources of data, procedures, or methodologies are used, documentation must be sufficient for EPA to duplicate calculations and make a judgment as to the acceptability of the submission.

Emissions projections should be summarized in hardcopy form and also submitted in computerized format. The computerized format will depend on whether projections are completed using the detailed equations, EPS, or the new software being developed by EPA. Emissions projections will most likely be required to be submitted through AIRS. More information on the computerized 78 format for next few mon Since the data n include confident data that can lead ( emissions combined w States to submit ratio base year) or operating factors/ rates. States mus available for EPA to spot c the background historical inf base year and projection year e 79 7.0 CONTROL Nitrogen oxide 1990 1996 may no the rate of progr reductions occurrin since 1990, may be co reductions for the pos States may choose pur some portion of future VOC substitution. The EPA expe of NOx for VOC emissions redu post 1996 period.

7.1 Stationary Source Controls For extreme ozone nonattainment areas the Act requires certain boilers to imp advanced control technology by November 1 information should be included in a SIP re 15, 1993). Affected boilers are individual existing electric utility, industrial, or commercial/ institutional boilers that emit more NOx . The Act specifies, for purposes of this sec fuels are " natural gas, methanol, or ethanol ( or a polluting fuel)," advanced control technology genera " catalytic control technology or other comparably effe control methods," and the clean fuel must be " used 90 pe more of the operating time." [ See General Preamble, sect III. A. 6. d ( 57 FR 13523).]

For further information on applicable NOx controls for stationary sources, States should refer to NOx RACT rules, as well as NOx ACT documents ( see Appendix J for list of ACT's). In the event that the ACT's are not released soon enough, some control strategies might be found by consulting the BACT/ LAER Clearinghouse and/ or NSPS ( see Appendix J).

Under Title IV of the Act, the acid deposition program requires NOx emissions reductions from tangentially fired boilers and dry bottom wall fired boilers ( see Proposed Rule 57 FR 55632)

and wet bottom wall fired boilers, cyclones and other utility boiler types ( rules due January 1, 1997). A range of control techniques known as " low NOx burners" required for the first category of boilers, that is dry bottom wall fired and tangentially fired boilers ( see 57 FR 55632 for discussion of these technologies and techniques). The acid deposition proposed rule also allows for alternative technologies under certain conditions such as reburning, selective catalytic reduction, and selective noncatalytic reduction ( none of these alternative technologies should be deemed covered by RACT, however). 80 The air qua South Coast,

may also incor These programs a as controls on la requirement that al [ the specific air qua information].

7.2 Area Source Controls States may also elect to have sources even though the CAAA do For instance, California has ado Appendix J contains two rules that SIP both are SCAQMD rules. The gro new housing developments that would u could be particularly offset by such a Below is a list of present and future NOx h rules, that either are not currently part of scheduled for adoption in early 1993 or 1994.

appropriate Air Pollution Control District ( APC Management District ( AQMD) for more information.

Ventura APCD Gas Fired Water Heaters Rule 74.11 El Dorado APCD Residential Wood Combustion 1/ 93 Residential Space Heating 2/ 93 Residential Water Heating 3/ 94 Kern County APCD Residential/ Commercial Water 1/ 93 Heaters Bay Area AQMD Residential Water Heaters 1993 Residential Wood Combustion 1993 7.3 Mobile Source Controls States may take credit for certain NOx emissions reductions achieved through implementation of TCM's and enhanced I/ M programs. Emissions reductions may also occur through control of nonroad engines, but these reductions may not be realized until after 2000 due to the phase in schedule ( note that the CAAA applies to new engines only; the State would have to adopt a separate rule for rebuilt engines). 81 8.0 ATTAINME This section e requirements for nonattainment are for attainment demo quality situations th demonstration. It sho anthropogenic emissions both must also be included demonstration.

8.1 Requirements for Moderate an Section 181( a)( 1) establishes a sc the NAAQS for ozone for the nonattai marginal and above, based on the desi Section 182( b)( 1)( A) requires a SIP for nonattainment areas to provide for VOC an reductions necessary to attain the standar attainment by a SIP is the attainment demons moderate areas ( other than multi State nonatta requirement can be met through the application model and EPA approved modeling techniques descri current version of the Guideline on Air Quality Mod reference 37.)

Two models are suggested: UAM or EKMA. The General Preamble should be consulted regarding the attainment demonstration implications of using each model ( 57 FR 13510 EKMA is used, the attainment demonstration is due by November 1993. States choosing to run UAM for their intrastate moderat areas must submit their 15 percent rate of progress plan and a committal SIP addressing the attainment demonstration. The committal subject to a section 110( k)( 4) approval would include, at a minimum, evidence that grid modeling is well under way and a commitment, with schedule, to complete the modeling and submit it as a SIP revision by November 15, 1994. The completed attainment demonstration would include any additional controls needed for attainment. For further discussion of committal SIP's, see July 9, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors, concerning " Processing of State Implementation Plan ( SIP) Submittals."

States should plan to achieve emissions reductions as early in the process as possible, since section 181( b)( 2) requires EPA to make a determination as to whether an area has attained the ozone NAAQS within 6 months following an applicable attainment date. This requirement dictates the use of the most recent 3 years of air quality data, which means EPA will use 1994 1996 82 data in det ozone NAAQS.

8.2 Requirements Serious and above n SIP's, provide an att The attainment demonst photochemical grid model 8.3 Modeling Considerations Empirical Kinetic Modeling Anal The use of EKMA is described in Gu Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone SIP well as the Guideline on Air Quality and should be consulted, along with the Office, before an analysis is conducted w approach.

Urban Airshed Model ( UAM)

The use of UAM, a photochemical grid model, is re or required for modeling applications involving all classified serious and above, and for all interstate areas.

The UAM is described in Guideline for Regulatory Applicat of the Urban Airshed Model ( see reference 40), and the User Guide for the Urban Airshed Model ( see reference 41). These documents and the appropriate EPA Regional Office should be consulted before an analysis is conducted with this modeling approach.

8.4 Special Air Quality Situations Areas Requiring Emissions Reductions in Excess of 15 Percent There will be circumstances under which a moderate area will be able to show attainment of the NAAQS can be achieved only through VOC emissions reductions in excess of the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction mandated in section 182( b)( 1)( A)( i). This condition may exist for an area that has a design value at the top of range ( 0.138 to 0.159 ppm) of the moderate nonattainment classification, where there is a heavy concentration of VOC sources in a smaller area of the nonattainment area, or when atmospheric conditions favor the formation of ozone. The underlying requirement of the SIP for these areas is the attainment of the standard by the attainment date, not solely the achievement of the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction. 83 Areas Requi Section 182( b)

severe ozone non than 15 percent i State must demonstr ( NSR) program equival [ section 182( e)], exce source that emits, or ha major sources ( down to tho in the must be require plan must also include all me implemented area, in lig To qualify for the lesser percen that the SIP includes all measures that are achieved in practice by sou category in nonattainment areas of th classification.

Rural Nonattainment Areas Section 182( h) addresses the situation of a ru downwind of a larger urban area and classified area due to transport of ozone and ozone prec larger upwind urban area. A rural area is treated area if EPA Administrator finds that sources of emissions within the area do not make a significant co to the ozone concentrations measured in the or in o areas. The only requirements for these areas are the requirements specified in section 182( a) for marginal areas assumption being that the controls in the upwind area will so the problem in the rural transport area as well.

Section 185( e) provides a further exemption for small areas unable to attain the ozone standard due to transport of ozone and its precursors from other areas. A small area, defined as an area with a total population under 200,000, is exempt from all sanctions if the area can demonstrate that attainment is prevented because of ozone or ozone precursors transported from other areas. The exemption applies only if the area has met all other applicable requirements of the CAAA.

Multi State Nonattainment Areas Section 182( j) defines and establishes requirements for ozone nonattainment areas covering areas in more than one State called multi State nonattainment areas. Beyond the requirements in section 182 for the classification of the nonattainment areas ( marginal, moderate, serious, severe, extreme, transport),

section 182( j)( 1) requires States in these areas to coordinate the revisions and implementation of the SIP's applicable to the nonattainment areas and to use photochemical grid modeling ( or 84 another met process.

Each State in a develop and submi cooperation and int schedule for developi demonstration for the should also reference th plan should be submitted b Regional Air Division Direc State should write their own Regional Office and send copy nonattainment area for review ( s model letter). Please note that S Regional Offices on appropriate sche some States may negotiate dates throu Section 182( j)( 2) recognizes that an area within multi State nonattainment area demonstrate attainment " but for the failure States, in which other portions of the area ar commit to the implementation of all measures re 182...." If EPA Administrator makes a findin situation is occurring, the sanctions of section 17 apply to the petitioning State. Section II. A. 9 of t Preamble provides the primary guidance for these nonat area SIP's. Appendix I of this document contains a mode written by EPA as guidance to multi State planners.

International Border Areas Section 179B of the Act applies to nonattainment areas that are affected by emissions emanating from outside the United States. This section provides relief for nonattainment areas along international borders analogous to what is provided to States within multi State nonattainment areas by section 182( j):

EPA shall approve the SIP if it meets all the requirements in the CAAA and if the State establishes that the implementation of the plan would be adequate to attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS " but for emissions emanating from outside the United States."

Section 179B ( created by Title VIII, section 818 of the CAAA) and section V. C of the General Preamble provide SIP guidance for areas on international borders. 85 9.0 CONTINGE The Act requir levels of nonatt SIP's [ sections 1 measures in these p implemented in the ev Section 172( c)( 9) of t failures to demonstrate 182( c)( 9) requires SIP con area milestone failures.

The SIP's for moderate and abov include provisions for the imple without further State or EPA actio 182( c)( 9) specify that the contingen effect without further action by the The EPA interprets this requirement to rulemaking activities by or the implement the contingency measures. The E certain actions, such as notification of sou of permits, would probably be needed before a implemented effectively. States must show that measures can be implemented with minimal further part and with no additional rulemaking activities s hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA wil actions needed to affect full implementation of the me occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its attainment or milestone failure.

9.1 Marginal Areas Section 182( a) specifically exempts marginal nonattainment areas from the contingency measures requirement stated in section 172( c)( 9).

Although marginal areas are excluded from the requirement for contingency measures in their SIP's, marginal areas should carefully consider contingency measures in case an area does not attain by the 1993 date. This issue arises because of the short planning and implementation time frame ( 3 years) available between the attainment dates for marginal and moderate areas.

If a marginal area fails to attain by its November 15, 1993 date,

it will become subject to all of the requirements for moderate areas, specifically the I/ M program, RACT, and the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements. The additional moderate nonattainment area requirements would have to be met after reclassification and the standard would have to be attained by November 15, 1996, an extremely tight time frame for these provisions if no prior planning and adoption actions had occurred. If the area then misses the November 15, 1996 attainment date, the area would again be reclassified and, 86 therefore,

areas. This Appendix H des finding of a mil moderate areas.

9.2 Moderate and Above Ozone nonattainment area must include in their SIP contingency measures to be attainment or milestone failu is appropriate because States m date that show the 15 percent VO achieved in 1996. Under sections demonstrations of milestone complian nonattainment area's milestone and at and the area is determined to have atta that is found to have attained the standa is not obligated to demonstrate that the 1 achieved because November 15, 1999, is also for serious areas). It should be remembered t maintenance plan for an area that is redesignat State must show that its SIP was fully implemente The CAAA do not specify how many contingency measure needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that m provided by these measures. Assuming that all of the St measures may fail to produce their expected reductions, o interpretation of the CAAA is that a State would have to ad sufficient contingency measures in the November 15, 1993, SIP submittal to make up for this entire shortfall. The EPA belie that this would be an unreasonable requirement given the difficulty many States already have in identifying and adopting sufficient measures to meet the rate of progress and other CAAA requirements.

Contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions reduction progress continues to be made while the State plans additional control measures.

Therefore, as stated in section III. A. 3. c of the General Preamble ( 57 FR 13498), EPA interprets the CAAA to require States with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency measures the November 15, 1993 submittal so that, upon implementation of such measures,

additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the emissions in the adjusted base year inventory would be achieved in the year following that in which the attainment failure has been identified. These emissions reductions are in addition to those that are already scheduled to occur in accordance with the general control strategy for the area. This provision ensures that ( 1) progress toward attainment occurs at a rate similar to 5Similarly, if the State's SIP revision process is shorter than 1 year, contingency measures providing proportionally less than 3 percent will be acceptable ( e. g., 1.5 percent reduction for a 6 month revision time frame).

87 that specif the State wi implementing a shortfall in emi measures resultin States must identif will be implemented a projected for each con It is important to note th contingency measures be imp of failure. In other words,

implementation of sufficient me 2 percent, not the 3 percent ( or below). If EPA determines that a 3 percent exists in a nonattainment individual control measures from the contingency plan as prioritized by the is covered. For example, four measures e reduction from the adjusted base year inve an area's contingency plan. Contingency mea within the plan in the order that they would b first two measures are projected to result in a reduction each, while the last two are projected 0.5 percent reduction each. If a 1 percent shortfa identified, the first contingency measure would be i if a 2.5 percent shortfall is identified, then the fir contingency measures would be implemented.

Under this approach, the State would have 1 year to modify its SIP and take other corrective action needed to ensure tha milestones are achieved and that rate of progress towards attainment continues. The EPA believes that 1 year to revise th SIP is appropriate in most cases as this is consistent with the time frame of other rate of progress requirements. If a State needs significantly longer than 1 year to revise its SIP ( perhaps due to the length of the State's legislative process), then the State is expected to provide for additional contingency measures commensurate with the length of time necessary for the SIP revision. For example, if the State anticipates that it will require 2 years to revise its SIP, then the plan should include contingency measures that will produce 6 percent emissions reductions ( 3 percent per year). 5 In the case of moderate areas,

contingency measures would be needed when an area incurs an attainment failure or, for serious and above areas, if the area incurs either an attainment or a milestone failure). If, for 88 example, a a higher cla that apply to would be impleme new measures asso One way that States c requirement is by prov before the dates schedul That is, a State may inclu requirement that control me later years, would instead be either does not meet its milest applicable date. For example, a A scheduled for implementation in is also included in its contingency the 1996 milestone and elects to impl Control measure A is then implemented i that implement control measures from thei strategy as a contingency measure must dev backfill both the control strategy and the c Within 1 year of the triggering of a contingen early implementation of control measures, the S SIP revision containing whatever additional provi to backfill the SIP to remedy any eventual shortfal occur as the result of the early use of the control The EPA expects any control measures that are implemen as part of a contingency plan will remain in place ( or b superseded by replacement control measures) until the nex milestone. At the next milestone, the State can demonstrat whether or not these control measures are needed to stay on track.

The EPA believes that a 3 percent contingency will be adequate for most areas but, in some cases 3 percent may be inadequate, especially if corrective action is not instituted in a timely manner prior to a milestone date. To address the possibility of a greater than 3 percent shortfall, EPA requires moderate and above areas to submit contingency measures providing for a 3 percent reduction as well as an enforceable commitment to submit an annual tracking program describing the degree to which it has achieved its projected annual emissions reduction.

Compliance for this requirement will be to participate in EPA's tracking efforts and respond accordingly. Because EPA believes it is necessary to assess the progress of States during the interim periods between plan submittals and milestone compliance determinations, it is developing a computer system to track the States' rate of progress plans. It is anticipated that this system will be utilized by EPA to develop tracking reports that estimate the percentage reduction in VOC emissions. States would review these reports and revise them if they do not agree with EPA's tracking assessment. Two options are available to States 89 when a shor First, S actions it wil this shortfall ( apart from the c failure. For examp shortfall, the State report additional cont shortfall) to be impleme As an alternative to this extra contingency measures shortfall expected by the mil this approach, the State must s the submittal of the follow up r that will be needed to remedy the 3 percent of contingency measures wo even though EPA would only require th measures be implemented to compensate f For example, if annual tracking determine the State could include in its next annual additional contingency measures ( equaling th shortfall) to be implemented if the milestone ascertains a shortfall of more than 3 percent.

Sections 172( c)( 9), 182( c)( 9), and 187( a)( 3) of the specify that the contingency measures shall " take ef further action by the State or the Administrator." Th interprets this requirement to mean that no further rule activities by the State or EPA would be needed to impleme contingency measures. The EPA recognizes that certain acti such as notification of sources and modification of permits,

would probably be needed before a measure could be implemented effectively. States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to effect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.

9.3 Serious and Severe Areas Within 90 days of a serious or severe area milestone failure, the CAAA require that States elect one of three options.

If a State elects to implement measures from the applicable contingency plan, then the EPA will review the plan within 90 days and make a determination as to whether further measures are necessary to meet the milestone. The contingency measures could be additional measures not already adopted to meet RFP or other requirements, or the accelerated implementation of measures already planned to meet a future milestone. In this later case,

the State would have to adopt additional measures to backfill the SIP with replacement measures to replace those that were 90 previously assure th [ See section I States are encour milestone failure i milestone failure occ available to implement milestone is met.

9.4 Nonclassifiable Areas Nonclassifiable areas include t incomplete/ no data areas. Secti areas from the Subpart 2 rules unt not clear from the CAAA, however, wh provisions are required of transition if contingency measures are required.

design values that fall below the moderat designation, and because marginal areas ar contingency measure requirement, CAAA ar requiring contingency measures for nonclassifi transitional areas are reclassified as a modera nonattainment area, however, they would be subjec contingency measures requirement of that particular classification ( again, marginal areas are exempt fro requirement). [ See section III. A. 7. a. 7 of the General ( 57 FR 13498).]

Because submarginal and incomplete/ no data areas generally present ozone problems that are less serious than marginal ar which are expressly exempted from the contingency measures requirement, and contingency measures are not likely to be necessary to ensure attainment for these areas, EPA believes that it is not appropriate to apply the contingency measure requirement for these areas under a de minimis approach.

Nevertheless, contingency measures are required as part of the maintenance plan for nonclassifiable or other nonattainment areas that are redesignated attainment by EPA; these contingencies are discussed in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors, concerning " Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment." 91 9.5 Examples Some examples include:

! Measures required ! Transportation contr ! An employer trip reduct ! An economic incentive progr " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking programs ( 58 FR 11110, February rule will be codified in 40 CFR Pa the proposed rule ( 58 FR 11130 11132 of stationary and mobile source economic incentive programs. Examples control measures ( discussed on pages 1113 the Federal Register notice) which could b contingency measures include, but are not li the following:

Fee Programs  Road pricing mechanisms are fee programs that are available to curtail low occupanc vehicle use, fund transportation system improvements and control measures, spatially and temporally shift driving patterns, and attempt to effect land usage changes. Primary examples include increased peak period roadway, bridge, or tunnel tolls ( this could also be accomplished with automated identification systems), and toll discounts for pooling arrangements and zero emitting/ low emitting vehicles.

Tax Code Provisions  Mobile source tax code incentive strategies include waiving or lowering any of the following for zero or low emitting vehicles: vehicle registration fees, vehicle property tax, sales tax,

taxicab license fees, and parking taxes.

Subsidies  A State may create incentives for reducing emissions by offering direct subsidies, grants, or low interest loans to encourage purchase of lower emitting capital equipment or a switch to less polluting operating practices. Examples of such programs include clean vehicle conversions, starting shuttle bus or van pool programs, and mass transit fare subsidies.

Preretirement Reduction Program  An example would include an old car scrappage program. 93 REFERENCES 1. Guidance on the 1996 Target EPA 452/ R 92 005,

Office of Air Quali Triangle Park, NC. O 2. BEA Regional Projectio Department of Commerce, Bu ( Washington, DC: U. S. Gove 1990.

3. BEA Regional Projections to 20 Statistical Areas, U. S. Department Economic Analysis, ( Washington, DC:

Printing Office). October 1990.

4. BEA Regional Projections to 2040, Volum Areas, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau Analysis, ( Washington, DC: U. S. Government Office). October 1990.

5. Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,

91 019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offic Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Pa July 1991.

6. Depreciation: for Use in Preparing 1992 Returns,

Publication No. 534, Catalog No. 150640, U. S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC.

7. A Projection Methodology for Future State Level Volatile Organic Compound VOC) Emissions from Stationary Sources Version 2.0, EPA 600/ 8 88 090, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1988.

8. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume IV: User's Manual for the Emissions Preprocessor System 2.0, Part A:

Core FORTRAN System, and Part B: Interface and Emissions Display System, EPA 450/ 4 90 007D( R), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1992.

9. Reference 5.

10. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA 453/ R 92 018 ( Revises EPA

450/ 2 78 022), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1992. 94 11. OAQPS Co Environmenta Planning and S January 1990.

12. Technical Guidan Control of Vehicle Re dispensing Facilities,

Protection Agency, Offic Standards, Research Triang 13. Enforcement Guidance for Programs, Draft, U. S. Environme Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Ar 14. Procedures for Emission Inventory Mobile Sources, EPA 450/ 4 81 026d ( Re Environmental Protection Agency, Office Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 15. Transportation Control Measure Informatio U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office o Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. October 1991.

16. Transportation Control Measures: State Implemen Guidance, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. September 1990.

17. Evaluation of Travel Demand Management Measures to Rel Congestion, Report No. FHWA SA 90 005, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC. February 1990.

18. Feasibility and Cost Effectiveness of Controlling Emissions from Diesel Engines in Rail, Marine, Construction, Farm, and Other Mobile Off Highway Equipment, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis,

Washington, DC. February 1988.

19. Summary of Group I Control Technique Guideline Documents for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, EPA 450/ 3 78 120, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1978.

20. Issues relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,

and Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,

1987 Federal Register, ( no document number issued), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. May 25, 1988 ( revised January 11,

1990). 95 21. Summary for Control Stationary Sou Protection Agenc Standards, Resear 22. Reference 20.

23. " Volatile Organic Com Available Control Technolo G. T. Helms, U. S. Environmen Air Quality Planning and Stan Monoxide Programs Branch, Resea Regional Division Directors. Ju 24. Reference 20.

25. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid W Background Information for Proposed Stand Guidelines, EPA 450/ 3 90 011( a), U. S. Envi Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Pla Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 26. Enabling Document for Regulations Governing Co Extensions for Early Reductions of Hazardous Air Po EPA 450/ 3 91 013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agen Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1991.

27. Questions and Answers about the Early Reductions Program EPA 450/ 3 92 005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1992.

28. Procedures for Establishing Emissions for Early Reduction Compliance Extensions, EPA 450/ 3 91 012a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1992.

29. Coke Oven Emissions from Wet Coal Charged By Product Coke Oven Batteries  Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA 450/ 3 85 028a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1987.

30. Hazardous Waste TSDF's  Technical Guidance Document for RCRA Air Emissions for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks,

EPA 450/ 3 89 021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1990. 96 31. Hazardou RCRA Air Emi U. S. Environme Planning and Sta June 1991. ( Note 32. Guidelines for Est for Ozone/ CO State Imp Inventories, EPA 452/ R 9 Agency, Office of Air Qual and Carbon Monoxide Program NC. November 1992.

33. Workshop on Requirements for 1.2 102, U. S. Environmental Protec Quality Planning and Standards. Rev 1978.

34. AIRS User's Guide: AMS Data Storage,

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality P Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 35. Reference 14.

36. Reference 6.

37. Guideline on Air Quality Models, EPA 450/ 2 78 027R,

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.

July 1986.

38. Guideline for Use of City Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone SIP's, EPA 450/ 4 80 027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1980.

39. Reference 37.

40. Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA 450/ 4 91 01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1991.

41. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, EPA 450/ 4 90 007,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1990.

42. Reference 1.

43. Reference 5.

44. Reference 1. 97


Summary of Process to Identify the Appropriate Site-Specific Technology where Preapproved BTA is Infeasible
For the small number facilities where the preferred BTA is infeasible given site-specific factors, EPA should establish a rigorous process for state environmental regulators and facilities to identify appropriate alternative technologies considering the expected impingement mortality reduction, including avoidance of impingement, and cost-benefit analyses.  Appendix A highlights the types of plants that could have circumstances where the preapproved BTA will be infeasible because of site constraints or the preapproved BTA would have very substantial impediments to their effectiveness or could not be installed at existing cooling water intake structures at a reasonable cost.
The following outlines the process companies and permitting directors would undertake to identify the appropriate site-specific technology to ensure that the rule results in a significant national reduction in impingement mortality with important environmental and ecological benefits throughout the U.S.
               Comparable Discussion for Impingement Mortality
If the preapproved BTA  is technically infeasible based on site-specific considerations, or if a company identifies that a more cost-effective technology will achieve comparable performance to preapproved BTA, the company, in coordination with the permitting director, should engage in a process to select the comparable BTA technology(ies) required for the site considering expected impingement mortality reduction, including avoidance of impingement, and considering social costs compared to social benefits.  This analysis must reflect the Director's determination of the maximum reduction in impingement mortality warranted after consideration of all factors relevant for determining BTA for the facility.
For each site-specific BTA determination, the Director must provide a written explanation of the proposed BTA determination for the proposed permit.  The written explanation must describe why the Director has rejected any impingement mortality control technologies or measures that are better-performing than the pre-approved BTA, and must reflect consideration of all reasonable attempts to mitigate any adverse impacts of otherwise available better performing impingement technologies.  The Director may reject an otherwise available technology as BTA for impingement mortality if the social costs of compliance are not justified by the social benefits or if there are adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated and that the Director deems to be unacceptable.  If all technologies considered have social costs not justified by the social benefits, or have unacceptable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, the Director may determine that no additional control requirements are necessary beyond what the facility is already doing.  At a minimum, the proposed determination in the statement of basis must be based on consideration of the following factors:
   (1)    Numbers and types of organisms impinged, considering technologies that reduce the number of fish impinged;
   (2)    Impingement mortality impacts on the waterbody, considering seasonal dynamics;
   (3)    Quantified and qualitative social benefits and social costs of available impingement technologies, including ecological benefits and benefits to any threatened or endangered species;
   (4)    Impacts on the reliability of energy delivery within the immediate area;
   (5)    Impact of changes in particulate emissions or other pollutants associated with impingement technologies;
   (6)    Land and space availability inasmuch as it relates to the feasibility of impingement technology;
   (7)    Impacts on water consumption;
   (8)    Location and design of current intake;
   (9)    Remaining useful plant life; and
   (10)    Facility size.
In identifying the site-specific BTA technology, the facility and permitting director should consider any applicable examples included in a database EPA should establish to illustrate the expected performance of BTA technologies at specific sites. These examples would be based on a robust data set and reflect different situations that will affect impingement and impingement mortality such as different water bodies, fragile species, facility sizes, and seasonal dynamics.  The expected performance should be based on both fish mortality and biomass, and account for actions that prevent fish impingement in the first place.  This database and review will facilitate permitting authorities' identification and assessment of alternatives to the preapproved BTA technologies. These examples would not establish a national precedent that would be applicable to all facilities.

                                  Appendix A
   Examples of Situations Where Preapproved BTA is Not Technically Feasible
A small but important number of plants will have circumstances where the preapproved BTA will be infeasible because the preapproved BTA technology would have very substantial impediments to their effectiveness or could not be installed at existing cooling water intake structures at a reasonable cost.  Examples of these circumstances include:

   1. Long return and unfavorable receiving water environment  -  Existing facilities are often located in industrial areas at some distance from the source of cooling water, and in many cases, cooling water canals have been constructed for both the intake and discharge flows to access the source and receiving waterbodies (which are not always the same).  These features allow the plants to be constructed further away from the source waterbody, but the associated distances create a challenge to effective return of impinged organisms to their natural habitat.  Often, the closest potential return location has substantially different characteristics (e.g., depth, currents, and water quality) such that returned organisms may be exposed to additional stress, predation, or other factors affecting their survival.  Topographic extremes add to this issue, both in the case of flat terrain with long runs to the waterbody as well in more rugged terrain where straight runs to the waterbody may not be feasible.  Such systems result in long residence times within the return system with increased potential for temperature and handling stresses.  In many cases, nearby locations for fish return are affected by the thermal loading of the plant's discharge, resulting in additional stress on the organisms once they are returned to the receiving water.  In other cases, favorable locations for fish return are subject to heavy port activities and shipping traffic, precluding access to the waterbody by a fish return and likely adversely affecting the survival of returned fish.  NextEra Energy's Port Everglades plant exhibits all three of these potential concerns due to the length to the closest access to the source water (approximately one-half mile), which is used as a major harbor for commercial shipping and cruise ships.

      Additionally, Constellation Energy's Gould Street facility has traveling screens installed but no fish return system.  A fish return system is not feasible given the location in a cove off of the Patapsco River.  The facility is located between a Tyco cable-laying ship facility and a marina.  Given the small size of the plant's property and the surrounding uses in the area, there is no place to locate a fish return away from the intake and thereby avoid re-impingement.  Because the waterbody has significant boat traffic, it is also not possible to install a fish return pipe extending beyond the cove.

      Another example of an ineffective and infeasible fish return is NextEra Energy's Seabrook plant, which is located approximately 1.5 miles inland from a set of barrier islands and approximately one mile from the estuary.  The plant receives its cooling water from a velocity cap located a further 1.3 miles offshore.  Return of the (very small number of) impinged fish to the estuary will result in mortality due to the inappropriateness of this habitat compared with the deep offshore environment.   Additionally, construction of a fish return to the ocean is precluded by the extremely long distance, which includes approximately one mile of wetlands, a half-mile of open water estuary, and the barrier islands.  In fact, the existing subsea and underground tunnel for intake and cooling water was designed to avoid impacts to these sensitive environments and the near-shore sea bottom.  The situation at NextEra Energy's St. Lucie facility is very similar.

      Finally, widely fluctuating water levels in rivers (either associated with locks and dams or normal hydrological variation) or tidal systems also complicate design of an effective fish return system.  For example, at NextEra's Wyman plant on the coast of Maine, the tidal variation is between 10 and 12 feet.

   2. Substantial debris loading and NPDES prohibition on return of debris  -  Many of NextEra Energy's regulated plants in Florida experience significant debris loading from floating macroalgae, uprooted seagrass, and jellyfish that result in substantial loading of naturally-occurring material/debris on the traveling screens.  The discharge permits require that  aquatic organisms be returned to their natural habitat but prohibits the return of any other material collected from the traveling screens to the receiving waters.  We are also aware of similar prohibitions in other states and cases where the mass of man-made debris exceeds the mass of fish by approximately 100-fold.  We are concerned that these naturally-occurring events of seagrass and other material loading on the screens will result in compliance issues, primarily: 1) achieving the impingement mortality performance goals due to physical stress from the high debris loads on the organisms during impingement on the screens and during efforts to separate them from the debris; and 2) inability to comply with the prohibition on returning debris to the receiving water body due to the requirement to return aquatic organisms.  Similarly, we are concerned that organisms that are attached or otherwise difficult to remove from the debris during these critical events would be included in the mortality losses, further contributing to potential non-compliance with the impingement mortality performance goals.   Thus, the rule should include provisions for the impacts from these events similar to the Phase II rule's recognition that the permitting director had the discretion to consider unique and exceptional events in evaluating compliance with that rule's performance goals.

   3. Impacts due to cake and frazzle ice: on screens, in trough, at point of return  -  Many existing plants have operational measures to limit the impact of ice during cold weather.  In some cases, warm water is circulated out to the front of the intake area to avoid ice buildup on bar racks and screens.  While necessary to maintain normal plant operations, these measures will likely present additional obstacles for fish that are impinged and returned to the source water body at or near ambient temperatures.  Under severe wintertime conditions, ice will form in the return troughs and at the point of return to the waterbody.  Such conditions would be encountered at NextEra Energy's Point Beach plant in Wisconsin as well as several other plants located in northern climates.

   4. Screen house and other infrastructure constraints on retrofit  -  The intakes and traveling screens at many existing plants were designed primarily for the purpose of debris removal and were sized to preclude objects that would clog the condenser tubes.  The majority of traditional traveling screens are housed in fiberglass enclosures installed to provide a safety enclosure to protect workers from the equipment as well as to protect the equipment from the elements.  Facilities in more northerly climates have screen houses that shelter these enclosures.  Many plants will face substantial space restrictions within the intake bays and the screen houses for retrofitting fish-friendly screens, additional pressure washes, fish return troughs, etc.  Similarly, several existing plants are highly constrained by existing infrastructure both on the plant site and in the environs of the plant on the way to the source water.  These have the potential to greatly complicate the construction of the return and increase the stress on the returned fish.  Such is the case for NextEra Energy's Port Everglades plant, which has a major thoroughfare between it and the closest location for a fish return.

   5. Redundancy with existing effective measures  -  A broad requirement for the installation of fish-friendly traveling screens and fish return systems provides an unnecessary level of redundancy with little additional benefit at some facilities.  Examples include plants designed with offshore intakes that include velocity caps and acoustic deterrents (e.g., NextEra Energy's St. Lucie, Seabrook, and Point Beach plants), where the combined benefits of offshore locations and use of velocity caps (St. Lucie and Seabrook) and the use of innovative offshore intake designs and deterrence systems (Point Beach) substantially reduce impingement rates.  NextEra Energy's Duane Arnold plant is already equipped with cooling towers that should be considered compliant with the proposed impingement mortality and entrainment mortality performance standards.  Requirements for additional technologies are not cost-effective and do not provide a significant benefit to warrant their costs.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1961]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3374-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Missouri; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Missouri (FEMA-3374-EM), dated January 2,
2016, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 2, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 2, 2016, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Missouri resulting from severe storms, tornadoes,
straight-line winds, and flooding beginning on December 22, 2015,
and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the
Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists
in the State of Missouri.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), limited to direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael
L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    The counties of Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bollinger, Boone,
Butler, Callaway, Camden, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Cedar, Christian,
Clark, Cole, Cooper, Crawford, Dallas, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin,
Franklin, Gasconade, Greene, Hickory, Howard, Howell, Iron, Jasper,
Jefferson, Laclede, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Madison, Maries,
Marion, McDonald, Miller, Mississippi, Moniteau, Montgomery, Morgan,
New Madrid, Newton, Oregon, Osage, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps,
Pike, Polk, Pulaski, Ralls, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, St.
Charles, St. Clair, St. Francois, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve,
Stoddard, Stone, Taney, Texas, Vernon, Warren, Washington, Wayne,
Webster, and Wright and the Independent City of St. Louis for debris
removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B),
limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-00547 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


1 uterotrophic, Hershberger, steroidogenesis, aromatase, ER binding/ transcriptional activation, AR binding/ transcriptional activation, pubertal male, pubertal female, adult male, mammalian 2 generation Questions for EDMVS on strain/ species for mammalian assays in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program August 2003 1. Are there any mammalian assays being considered for the EDSP in which a specific strain should be used or avoided? 1 2. Should EPA standardize on one strain across all assays? a. if different strains are best for different assays b. if no strain is preferred for any of the assays 3. Should EPA require the use of multiple inbred strains? If so, a. for which assays? b. how many strains? c. which strains? d. should the total number of animals used in the assay be kept the same as if only one strain were used, or should each strain be tested with the full complement of animals?

4. Is there sufficient reason to switch from rats to a different test species? If so, which species?


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45306-45307]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0127]

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards Membership

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Performance Review Board (PRB) appointments.

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

SUMMARY: DOT published the names of the persons selected to serve on
Departmental PRBs as required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Williams, Director,
Departmental Office of Human Resource Management<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The persons named below may be selected to
serve on one or more Departmental PRBs.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 2018.
Keith E. Washington,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration.

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

ALICANDRI, ELIZABETH
ALONZI, ACHILLE
ARNOLD, ROBERT E.
BEZIO, BRIAN R.
BIONDI, EMILY CHRISTINE
BRIGGS, VALERIE
CALLENDER, DUANE A.
CHRISTIAN, JAMES C.
COLLINS, BERNETTA L.
CRONIN, BRIAN P.
EVANS, MONIQUE REDWINE
EVERETT, THOMAS D.
FINFROCK, ARLAN E JR.
FLEURY, NICOLLE M.
FURST, ANTHONY T.
GATTI, JONATHAN D.
GRIFFITH, MICHAEL S.
HARTMAN, JOSEPH L.
HENDRICKSON, BRANDYE
HESS, TIMOTHY G.
HUGHES RAYMAN, CAITLIN
KALLA, HARI
KEHRLI, MARK R.
KNOPP, MARTIN C.
LEONARD, KENNETH
LILLIE, MARK S.
LOTT, EVERETT
LUCERO, AMY C.
MAMMANO, VINCENT P.
MARCHESE, APRIL LYNN
OSBORN, PETER W.
PARKER, MALA
PETTY, KENNETH II
RAY, JAMES
RICHARDSON, CHRISTOPHER STEVEN
RICHTER, CHERYL ALLEN
RICO, IRENE
ROHLF, JOHN G.
SCHAFTLEIN, SHARI M.
SCHMIDT, ROBERT T.
SHEPHERD, GLORIA MORGAN
SIGEL, BETHANY RENEE
STEPHANOS, PETER J.
SUAREZ, RICHARDO
TURNER, DERRELL E.
WALKER, CHERYL J.
WINTER, DAVID R.
WRIGHT, LESLIE JANICE
ZIMMERMAN, MARY BETH

Federal Motor Carrier Administration

BECHTEL, LEONARD
COLLINS, ANNE L.
DELORENZO, JOSEPH P.
FROMM, CHARLES J.
GAUTREAUX, CATHY
HORAN, CHARLES A. III
JONES, DARIN
KEANE, THOMAS P.
MILLER, ROBERT WILLIAM
MINOR, LARRY W.
MULLEN, JIM
QUADE, WILLIAM A. III
REGAL, GERALDINE K.
RIDDLE, KENNETH H.
RUBAN, DARRELL L.
SCHREIBMAN, JACK
SMITH, STEVEN K.
THOMAS, CURTIS L.
VAN STEENBURG, JOHN W.

Federal Railroad Administration

ALEXY, JOHN KARL
ALLAHYAR, MARYAM
HARTONG, MARK W.
HERRMANN, THOMAS J.
LAUBY, ROBERT C.
LESTINGI, MICHAEL W.
LONG, MICHAEL T.
NISSENBAUM, PAUL
PENNINGTON, REBECCA A.
RENNERT, JAMIE P.
REYES, JUAN D.
REYES-ALICEA, REBECCA
RIGGS, TAMELA LYNN
STURGES, MATTHEW

Federal Transit Administration

AHMAD, MOKHTEE
BUCHANAN, HENRIKA J.
CROUCH, MATTHEW M.
GARCIA CREWS, THERESA
GARG, ARJUN
GEHRKE, LINDA M.
GOODMAN, STEPHEN C.
LITTLETON, THOMAS
NIFOSI, DANA C.
PATRICK, ROBERT C.
TAYLOR, YVETTE G.
TERWILLIGER, CINDY E.
TUCCILLO, ROBERT J.
VALDES, VINCENT
WELBES, MATTHEW J.
WILLIAMS, K. JANE

Maritime Administration

BALZANO, RICHARD A.
BRAND, LAUREN K.
BROHL, HELEN A.
BURNETT, DOUGLAS R.
CAHILL, WILLIAM H.
DAVIS, DELIA P.
DUNLAP, SUSAN LYNN
FISHER, ANTHONY JR.
HELIS, JAMES A.
KUMAR, SHASHI N.
MC MAHON, CHRISTOPHER J.
MOSCHKIN, LYDIA
PIXA, RAND R.
TOKARSKI, KEVIN M.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

BEUSE, NATHANIEL M.
BLINCOE, LAWRENCE J.
COGGINS, COLLEEN P.
DANIELSON, JACK H.
DOHERTY, JANE
DONALDSON, K. JOHN
GIUSEPPE, JEFFREY M.
GUNNELS, MARY D.
HATIPOGLU, CEM
HINES, DAVID M.
JOHNSON, TIM J.
KING, HIEDI R.
KOLLY, JOSEPH M.

MARSHALL, JOHN W.
MCLAUGHLIN, SUSAN
MICHAEL, JEFFREY P.
MORRISON, JONATHAN C.
PARKER, CYNTHIA D.
POSTEN, RAYMOND R.
RIDELLA, STEPHEN A.
SHELTON, TERRY T.
SPRAGUE, MARY G.
SU, EMILY H.
WOOD, STEPHEN P.
WILLIAMS, VANESTER

Office of the Secretary

ABRAHAM, JULIE
AIZCORBE, CHRISTINA
ALBRIGHT, JACK G.
AUDET, ANNE H.
AUGUSTINE, JOHN E.
AYLWARD, ANNE D.
BALDWIN, KRISTEN K.
BEDELL, ANTHONY R.
BOHNERT, ROGER V.
BURR, GEOFFREY GRANT
BURTHEY, GROVER
CARLSON, TERENCE W.
CHANG, WILLIAM
CHULUMOVICH, MADELINE
CONNORS, SUSAN M.
FLEMING, GREGG G.
FULTON, THOMAS FINCH
FUNK, JENNIFER S.
GEIER, PAUL M.
GENERO, LAURA
HANSON, ALAN
HEDBERG, BRIAN J.
HERLIHY, THOMAS W.
HILDEBRAND, VICTORIA
HOLDEN, STEPHEN H.
HOMAN, TODD M.
HORN, DONALD H.
HU, PATRICIA S.
HURDLE, LANA T.
INMAN, JAMES TODD
JACKSON, RONALD A.
JAMES, CHARLES E.
JANG, DEENA L.
JEFFERSON, DAPHNE Y.
JOYNER, GREGORY GILBERT
KALETA, JUDITH S.
KNOUSE, RUTH D.
KRAMER, JOHN E.
LAWRENCE, CHRISTINE
LEFEVRE, MARIA S.
LOHRENZ, MARIA C.
MACECEVIC, LISA J.
MARTIN, HAROLD W. III
MCCANN, BARBARA A.
MCCARTNEY, ERIN P.
MCINERNEY, MARIANNE
MCMASTER, SEAN K.B.
MEDINA, YVONNE R.
MORRIS, WILLIS A.
MOSS, JONATHAN P.
NELSON, KEITH A.
O'BERRY, DONNA
ORNDORFF, ANDREW R.
OWENS, JAMES
PAIEWONSKY, LUISA M.
PETROSINOWOOLVERTON, MARIE
PLOCKI, PETER
POPKIN, STEPHEN M.
RAY, JAMES D.
SCHMITT, ROLF R.
SHORT, DAVID
SIMPSON, JOAN B.
SMITH, WILLIE H.
SOLOMON, GERALD L.
SZABAT, JOEL M.
SZAKAL, KEITH J.A.
SZATMARY, RONALD A.
TIMOTHY, DARREN P.
WASHINGTON, KEITH E.
WILLIAMS, LISA M.
WOLF, ARIEL
WOMACK, KEVIN C.
WORKIE, BLANE A.
ZIFF, LAURA M.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

BORENER, SHERRY
BOUMA, DARLENE
CURRY, KIM Y
DAUGHERTY, LINDA
FARLEY, AUDREY L.
MAYBERRY, ALAN K.
MCMILLAN, HOWARD W.
PEARCE, DRUE
PERRIELLO, TAMI L.
ROBERTI, PAUL
SCHOONOVER, WILLIAMS S.
TSAGANOS, VASILKI B.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

LAVIGNE, THOMAS A.
MIDDLEBROOK, CRAIG H.

[FR Doc. 2018-19304 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P