[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56777-56781]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24817]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0191; FRL-9986-30-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0191 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?
III. EPA's Review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality dated March 23, 2017, which describes its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR
3086). Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the
submission dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor''
provision. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this
type arises from Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to Section
110(a)(1), states must submit ``within 3 years (or such shorter period
as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' a plan that provides for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states
the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
EPA commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''

II. What guidance and memoranda is EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013, guidance document titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).
    The most recent relevant document is a memorandum published on
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good
Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum).

The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's consistent approach over the years
to address interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of
relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section
110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' provision in infrastructure SIPs
with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Michigan's
submittal and this rulemaking consider information provided in that
memorandum.
    The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with
future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the
United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring
data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes
how these projected potential design values can be used to help
determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially
address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explains
that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate projected air
quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated
through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum suggests
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at
sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable
to assume receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design
values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be
either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, the
2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable to assume that
receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025
are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. However, where a
potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in
2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum
suggests that further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be
needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in
2021.
    The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitor site in
the eastern United States with at least one complete and valid
PM2.5 design value for the annual average 2012 NAAQS in the
2009-2013 period, the modeling data shows that monitors were expected
to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results provided in the 2016
memorandum show that out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, one monitor is expected to be above the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017. Further, that monitor the
Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is projected to be above the
NAAQS only under the model's maximum projected conditions (used in
EPA's interstate transport framework to identify maintenance
receptors), and is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS
(along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. The 2016 memorandum
therefore indicates that under such a condition (where EPA's
photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017) further analysis
of the site should be performed to determine if the site may be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment deadline
for moderate PM2.5 areas).
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that based on modeling
projections, there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South
Coast nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho.
    The 2016 memorandum also indicates that for certain states with
incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including
the latest available data, should be analyzed to determine whether
there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted
by transported emissions. These states include all or portions of
Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and
Kentucky. With the exception of four counties in Florida, the data
quality problems have subsequently been resolved for these areas, and
these areas now have current design values below the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to
downward emission trends for NOX and SO2.
    Michigan's submittal indicates that the state used data from the
2016 memorandum in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from
Michigan, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its
review of the Michigan submittal.

III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Michigan's March
23, 2017 SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). State plans must address
four requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to
as ``prongs''), including:

--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong one);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong two);
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state (prong three); and
--Protecting visibility in another state (prong four).

    This rulemaking is evaluating Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission,
to determine whether Michigan's interstate transport provisions in its
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP meet prongs one and two of the good
neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs three and four will be
evaluated in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong
one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind;
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently

applied with respect to PM2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997
and 2008 ozone standards.
    Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission indicates that the
implementation of the Michigan SIP for SO2 will result in
SO2 reductions of over 11,000 tons per year through permit
changes and Rule 336.1430 in the Michigan Administrative Code (Michigan
R 336.1430). The submission indicates that rules R 336.1301 through R
336.1374 in the Michigan SIP limit emissions of particulate matter
throughout the state. The submission indicates that rules R 336.1401
through R 336.1420 and R 336.1407 reduce SO2 emissions
throughout the state, and that rule R 336.1430 reduces SO2
emissions in the Detroit area. The submission indicates that rules R
336.1801 through 336.1834 limit emissions of NO2 throughout
the state. In addition, Michigan's submission indicates that power
plant retirements across the state have resulted in reductions of
approximately 9,800 tons of NOX and 30,990 tons of
SO2 per year.
    Michigan's submittal also contains a technical analysis of its
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The technical analysis studies Michigan
sources' contribution to monitored PM2.5 air quality values
in other states and whether Michigan would need to take further steps
to decrease its emissions to (and therefore impacts on) those areas.
Michigan's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation, EPA
guidance and memoranda, and other factors such as meteorology and
state-wide emissions inventories. Michigan did not focus on potential
contribution to areas EPA identified as not attaining the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska, California,
Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii.
    The distance between Michigan these areas, coupled with the
prevailing wind directions, leads EPA to propose to find that Michigan
will not contribute significantly to any of the potential receptors in
those states.
    With respect to Illinois, EPA's source apportionment modeling in
our original CSAPR analysis predicts that Michigan's emissions impact
Illinois monitors. Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that
despite the fact that Michigan emissions potentially contribute to
increases in PM2.5 levels monitored in Illinois, all areas
in Illinois are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based
on 2015-2017 data.
    EPA considered available data from monitors in Illinois for its
analysis of Michigan's submittal. As shown in Table 1, Illinois is now
meeting the standard throughout the state.

Table 1--Illinois Annual PM2.5 Design Values for 2015-2017 Design Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2015-2017
                                                                Design
                Local site name                  Monitoring      value
                                                    site        ([mu]g/
                                                                 m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alsip.........................................   17-031-0001         9.5
Washington High School........................   17-031-0022         9.3
Mayfair Pump Station..........................   17-031-0052         9.1
Springfield Pump Station......................   17-031-0057        10.2
Com Ed........................................   17-031-0076         9.5
Schiller Park.................................   17-031-3103        10.5
Summit........................................   17-031-3301         9.7
Des Plaines...................................   17-031-4007         9.4
Northbrook....................................   17-031-4201         8.4
Cicero........................................   17-031-6005        10.0
Naperville....................................   17-043-4002         8.3
Elgin.........................................   17-089-0003         8.3
Aurora........................................   17-089-0007         8.3
Cary..........................................   17-111-0001     \+\ 8.2
Joliet........................................   17-197-1002         7.9
Braidwood.....................................   17-197-1011         7.9
Jerseyville...................................   17-083-0117     \+\ 8.8
Granite City..................................   17-119-1007         9.7
Alton.........................................   17-119-2009         8.8
Wood River....................................   17-119-3007         8.7
Houston.......................................   17-157-0001         8.5
East St. Louis................................   17-163-0010         9.8
Champaign.....................................   17-019-0006         7.9
Bondville.....................................   17-019-1001         7.8
Knight Prairie................................   17-065-0002         8.2
Normal........................................   17-113-2003         8.0
Decatur.......................................   17-115-0013         8.4
Peoria........................................   17-143-0037         8.2
Rock Island...................................   17-161-3002         8.1
Springfield...................................   17-167-0012         8.2
Rockford......................................   17-201-0013         8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+\ Data incomplete.

    Illinois' air quality trends reflect what is shown across the
nation: A general downward trend in ambient air concentrations,
including sites that Michigan analyzed in its submittal. During the
last valid design period, only three Illinois counties reported 2008-
2010 annual PM2.5 design values above the NAAQS: Cook,
Madison, and Saint Clair counties. In Cook County, the 2008-2010 annual
design value was 13.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), and
the annual mean values have trended downward. As shown in the table
above, these areas are now meeting the NAAQS for the 2015 to 2017
design period. Therefore, EPA expects that all counties in Illinois
will attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS without the need
for additional PM2.5 reductions in Michigan, and for this
reason, we propose to find that Michigan will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in Illinois.
    Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact
that Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels
monitored in areas in other states, all of those areas are attaining
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2014-2016 data.
Michigan found, and our review confirmed, that despite the fact that
Michigan emissions potentially increase PM2.5 levels
monitored in Pennsylvania, all areas in Pennsylvania except for
Allegheny County are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2015-2017 data.
    The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows
that one monitor in Allegheny County, PA (the Liberty monitor,
420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to
both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of
the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to
both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air
quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.
    Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of
primary PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen
oxide (NOX), have led to large reductions in annual
PM2.5 design values in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In
2007, all of Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitors exceeded the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual
average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 [micro]g/m\3\, as shown in
Table 3). The 2015-2017 annual average PM2.5 design values
now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 [micro]g/m\3\) exceeds
the health-based annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.

                                                                       Table 3--PM2.5 Annual Design Values in [micro]g/m3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Monitor                             2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011   2010-2012   2011-2013   2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon......................................................  ..........  ..........  ..........      * 16.3      * 14.7        13.4        11.4        10.6        10.6      * 10.4      * 10.2
Lawrenceville...............................................        15.0        14.0        13.1        12.2        11.6        11.1        10.3        10.0         9.7         9.5         9.2
Liberty.....................................................        19.8        18.3        17.0        16.0        15.0        14.8        13.4        13.0        12.6        12.8        13.0

South Fayette...............................................        12.9      * 11.8        11.7        11.1        11.0        10.5         9.6         9.0         8.8       * 8.5       * 8.4
North Park..................................................      * 13.0      * 12.3      * 11.3      * 10.1         9.7         9.4         8.8         8.5         8.5       * 8.2       * 8.2
Harrison....................................................        15.0        14.2        13.7        13.0        12.4      * 11.7        10.6        10.0         9.8         9.8         9.8
North Braddock..............................................        16.2        15.2        14.3        13.3        12.7        12.5      * 11.7        11.4        11.2        11.0        10.8
Parkway East Near-Road......................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      * 10.6      * 10.6
Clairton....................................................        15.3        14.3        13.2        12.4      * 11.5      * 10.9       * 9.8         9.5         9.8       * 9.8       * 9.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value does not contain a complete year's worth of data.

    The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS, and
expected emissions reductions in the next three years will lead to
additional reductions in measured PM2.5 concentrations.
There are both local and regional components to the measured
PM2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh
area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from
upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOX
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR
budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will
have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs).
    Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have
retired in Pennsylvania and the closest upwind states (West Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) according to the
Energy Information Administration's Preliminary Monthly Electric
Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-860M, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx). In addition,
between 2017 and 2021, an additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs
are expected to retire in the same upwind states. This includes large
EGUs such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station
in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana
(469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in
Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in
Indiana (480 MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to
further emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany
County monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by
2021.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures
noted above, additional local reductions in both direct
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are also expected to
occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny
County's PM2.5 monitor concentrations. For example,
significant SO2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's
integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to
reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by
Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet
requirements in CAA section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS.
Reductions are expected by October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur
content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded
controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke
Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in
sulfur content should contribute to much lower PM2.5
emissions from precursors in the immediate future after October 4, 2018
as SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5. Additionally,
improvement in SO2 removal efficiency due to an upgrade in
the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant's flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units
expected by October 2018 should also help reduce precursor emissions
from neighboring Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Allegheny County and
Beaver County SO2 SIP submissions, which EPA is reviewing
pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss expected lower
SO2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from
reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in
general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh
region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO2
in Allegheny County.
    Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in
Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further reduce both direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission
reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and
state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle
programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should also
contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5
monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO2
reductions have recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill
facilities in southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS SIP.\1\ Reductions are largely due to declining
sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's COG. Because this COG is
burned at US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar
Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should
contribute to much lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the
immediate future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards,
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the
Greater Pittsburgh region and several shutdowns of significant sources
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.achd.net/air/publichearing2017/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_5-1-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2018 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021.
    With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend
will continue, however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in
the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/
Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua

counties in Florida, the modeling analysis of potential receptors was
not complete for these counties. However, the most recent ambient data
(2015-2017) for these counties indicates design values well below the
level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the
highest value for these observed monitors is 8.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at the
Hillsborough County monitor (12-057-3002), which is well below the
NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid
design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010 periods for
these counties were all well below the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid
design values in the 2006-2008 and/or 2007-2009 periods for these
counties were well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For
these reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with
monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either
nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we propose to find that
emissions from Michigan will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida. We find further support in the fact
that EPA's source apportionment modeling predicting state impacts on
downwind monitors in 2012 under the base case scenario in our original
CSAPR analysis, showing little impact from Michigan to any of Florida's
counties.
    The conclusions of Michigan's analysis are consistent with EPA's
expanded review of its March 23, 2017 submittal. All areas that
Michigan sources potentially contribute to are expected to attain and
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in
its submittal, Michigan will not contribute to projected nonattainment
or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. Michigan's analysis shows
that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in
its SIP, and other emissions reductions occurring in Michigan and in
other states, monitored PM2.5 air quality in all identified
areas that Michigan sources may impact will continue to improve, and
that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Michigan's
responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA
is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution
transport element of Michigan's infrastructure SIP are approvable.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Michigan's March 23, 2017,
submittal certifying that the current Michigan SIP is sufficient to
meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth
above. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 29, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-24817 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89457-89458]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2386-004; 2387-003; 2388-004]

City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: Subsequent Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: 2386-004, 2387-003, and 2388-004.
    c. Date filed: August 31, 2016.
    d. Applicant: City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department.
    e. Names of Projects: Holyoke Number 1 Hydroelectric Project, P-
2386-004; Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project, P-2387-003; and
Holyoke Number 3 Hydroelectric Project, P-2388-004.
    f. Locations: Holyoke Number 1 (P-2386-004) and Holyoke Number 2
(P-2387-003) are located between the first and second level canals, and
Holyoke Number 3 (P-2388-004) is located between the second and third
level canals on the Holyoke Canal System, adjacent to the Connecticut
River, in the city of Holyoke in Hampden County, Massachusetts. The
project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, Superintendent, City of
Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 99 Suffolk Street, Holyoke, MA
01040,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-2386-004, P-
2387-003, and 2388-004.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. These applications have been accepted for filing, but are not
ready for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Holyoke Number 1 project consists of: (1) An intake
at the wall of the first level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System
(licensed under FERC Project No. 2004) with two 14-foot-8-inch-tall by
24-foot-7.5-inch wide trash rack screens with 3.5-inch clear spacing;
(2) two parallel 10-foot-diameter, 36.5-foot-long penstocks; (3) a 50-
foot-long by 38-foot-wide brick powerhouse with two 240-kilowatt and
two 288-kilowatt turbine generator units; (4) two parallel 20-foot-
wide, 328.5-foot-long brick arched tailrace conduits discharging into
the second level canal; and, (5) appurtenant facilities. There is no
transmission line associated with the project as it is located adjacent
to the substation of interconnection. The project is estimated to
generate 2,710,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
    The existing Holyoke Number 2 project consists of: (1) An intake at
the wall of the first level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System
(licensed under FERC Project No. 2004) with three trash rack screens
(one 16-foot-2-inch tall by 26-foot-2-inch-wide and two 14-foot-9-inch
tall by 21-foot-10-inch long) with 3-inch clear spacing; (2) two 9-foot
diameter, 240-foot-long penstocks; (3) a 17-foot-high by 10-foot-
diameter surge tank; (4) a 60-foot-long by 40-foot-wide by 50-foot high
powerhouse with one 800-kilowatt vertical turbine generator unit; (4)
two parallel 9-foot-wide, 10-

foot-high, 120-foot-long brick arched tailrace conduits discharging
into the second level canal; (5) an 800-foot-long, 4.8-kilovolt
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project is
estimated to generate 4,710,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
    The existing Holyoke Number 3 project consists of: (1) A 52-foot-3-
inch long by 14-foot-high intake trash rack covering an opening in the
second level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System (licensed under FERC
Project No. 2004); (2) two 11-foot-high by 11-foot-wide headgates; (3)
two 85-foot-long, 93-square-foot in cross section low pressure brick
penstocks; (4) a 42-foot-long by 34-foot-wide by 28-foot-high
reinforced concrete powerhouse with one 450-kilowatt turbine generator
unit; (5) a 29.7-foot-wide, 10-foot-deep, 118-foot-long open tailrace
discharging into the third level canal; and, (6) 4.8-kilovolt generator
leads that connect directly to the 4.8-kilovolt area distribution
system; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to
generate 2,119,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
    m. A copy of the applications are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other
comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the
proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.

    Dated: December 2, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29621 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50878-50880]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0159]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Vision
Systems North America, Inc. Application for an Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an exemption application from Vision Systems
North America, Inc. (VSNA) to allow motor carriers to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with the company's Smart-
Vision high definition camera monitoring system (Smart-Vision) as an
alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). VSNA states that its Smart-
Vision system provides the same functionality and view as traditional
mirrors but with high-definition cameras and interior displays. VSNA
believes the exemption would maintain a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption because the Smart-Vision system meets or exceeds the
performance requirements for traditional mirrors under the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)'s standards, which are
cross-referenced by the FMCSRs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2019-0159 using any of the
following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Submissions Containing Confidential Business Information
(CBI): Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including information collection comments for the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jose Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0159), indicate the specific section of
this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-2019-0159, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may make changes based on your comments.
Confidential Business Information
    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that
constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains proprietary
information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin,
Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590. Any
comments FMCSA receives which are not specifically designated as CBI
will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-2019-0159 and choose the
document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may
view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Background

    Under Agency regulations, FMCSA must publish a notice of each
exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The
Agency must provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the
information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses
that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity
for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's
decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)).
If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason for doing
so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice must specify
the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and the
regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is granted.
The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

VSNA Application for Exemption

    VSNA has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a) to allow
its Smart-Vision system to be installed as an alternative to the two
rear-vision mirrors required on CMVs. A copy of the application is
included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.80(a) of the FMCSRs requires that each bus, truck, and
truck-tractor be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each
side. The mirrors must be positioned to reflect to the driver a view of
the highway to the rear and the area along both sides of the CMV.
Section 393.80(a) cross-references NTHSA's standards for mirrors on
motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
[FMVSS] No. 111). Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 provides requirements
for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340
kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than
4,536 kg. Paragraph S8.1 provides requirements for mirrors on
multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or
more.
    The Smart-Vision system consists of multiple digital cameras firmly
mounted high on the exterior of the vehicle, enclosed in an aerodynamic
package that provides both environmental protection for the cameras and
a mounting location for optimal visibility. Each camera has proprietary
video processing software that presents a clear, high-definition image
to the driver by means of a monitor firmly mounted to each A-pillar of
the CMV, i.e., the structural member between the windshield and door of
the cab. VSNA explains that attaching the monitors to the A-pillars
avoids the creation of incremental blind spots while eliminating the
blind spots associated with conventional mirrors. VSNA states that its
Smart-Vision system meets or exceeds the visibility requirements in
FMVSS No. 111 based on the following factors:
     Increased field of view (FOV) when compared to
conventional mirrors--The Smart-Vision system enables the driver to see
(1) vehicles and pedestrians in the ``No-Zone,'' (2) multiple lanes of
traffic and overtaking vehicles that are entering the commercial
vehicle ``No-Zone,'' (3) tire fires, and (4) loose straps, ropes, or
chains when transporting open cargo.
     Increased Image Quality--The Smart-Vision system provides
enhanced vision in inclement weather, higher visibility in low light
conditions, and filters out sunlight glare at dawn and dusk, improving
driver visibility.
     Fail-safe design--The Smart-Vision system has a fail-safe
design due to the independent video processing of multiple camera
images, additionally supported by software diagnostics to ensure that
``real time images'' are displayed and that any unlikely partial
failure is clearly identified.
     Reduced Driver Fatigue--The Smart-Vision system results in
less lateral head and eye movement due to the monitor location on the
A-pillar, and VSNA believes that this may result in lower levels of
driver fatigue after extended driving times.
    The exemption would apply to all CMV operators driving vehicles
equipped with the Smart-Vision system. VSNA believes that mounting the
system as described would maintain a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on

VSNA's application for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a). All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date
indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in
the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: September 19, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-20904 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                               DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                                                 WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 27, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DOCKET OST-2006-26723

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (DELTA) filed 12/21/06 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Salt Lake City, Utah, and Mazatlan, Mexico, with its own
aircraft.

Applicant rep:  Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (subject to conditions and remarks, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: December 27, 2006, through
December 27, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   	XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard policy, the dormancy
notice period for the new exemption authority granted will begin March
1, 2007, Delta’s proposed start-up date for the subject service.

Remarks: Delta states that it intends to replace Shuttle America
Corporation (Shuttle America), a Delta Connection carrier, on the Salt
Lake City-Mazatlan route beginning as early as March 1, 2007, and until
such time as SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (SkyWest) is authorized by the
Mexican Government to operate on this route.  Delta further states that
Shuttle America will surrender its designation once Delta no longer
requires it to operate Delta Connection flights on this route.

We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the 15-day
answer period with the consent of all parties served with the
application.

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp U.S. Carrier Exemption
Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/06

 Delta holds exemption authority for the Salt Lake City-Mazatlan route
on a code-share basis only (see Notice of Action Taken dated September
14, 2005, in Docket OST-2005-21724).

 On November 21, 2006, the Department granted SkyWest’s request for a
dormancy waiver for the Salt Lake City-Mazatlan market (see Departmental
Action in Docket OST-2006-25495).  SkyWest plans to operate Delta
Connection service.

 To ensure that Delta/Delta Connection service is not disrupted, Delta
states that Shuttle America’s designation should not be revoked until
Delta’s application for exemption authority has been approved,
Delta’s replacement service on this route has commenced, and Shuttle
America has given the Department notice that its authority is dormant.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79499]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4569-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4569-DR), dated October 16, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 20, 2020.

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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective November 17, 2020.

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.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27177 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P