FEMA  POLICY:  Guidance for Implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS)
                               FEMA Policy 078-3

      BACKGROUND
This policy applies to FEMA Federally Funded Projects.  FEMA Federally Funded Projects are actions where FEMA funds are used for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to structures or facilities.  This policy applies to both "critical" and "non-critical" actions, as defined below.  This policy does not apply to assistance provided for emergency work essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety, performed pursuant to Sections 403 and 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. This policy does not apply to the non-grant components of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
      PURPOSE
      This policy sets forth how FEMA will apply the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) to establish the floodplain for FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
      PRINCIPLES
      By expanding floodplain management to a higher vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain, FEMA will:

     A.         Help ensure that communities affected by future flood disasters are less vulnerable to the loss of life and property.
     B. Improve the resilience of FEMA Federally Funded Projects against the impacts of flooding to ensure such projects will last as long as intended.
     C. Provide additional protection against flooding for critical FEMA Federally Funded Projects by using the best available, actionable climate science as a preferred approach, where available and at the election of the applicant for FEMA funding.
      REQUIREMENTS
      In accordance with Section 2(a)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 11988, as amended by EO 13690, before taking an action, FEMA will determine whether a proposed action will occur in a floodplain.  For all actions which are FEMA Federally Funded Projects, FEMA will use the FFRMS definition of the floodplain.  FEMA will coordinate with applicants for FEMA funding to ensure there is consideration of the location of the floodplain and elevation of the floodplain during the planning phase of project applications to inform construction requirements.

      A. PHASE 1: USE OF THE APPROACHES OF THE FFRMS
      Outcome: FEMA determines if the FEMA Federally Funded Project is a critical or non-critical action, and applies the appropriate vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal FFRMS floodplain in the decision-making process described in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 9.6.  Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of the decision-making process.

      1.       For all FEMA Federally Funded Projects that are not critical actions, FEMA will use the FFRMS-Freeboard Value Approach (FVA) to establish the vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal FFRMS-FVA floodplain.  The FFRMS-FVA is based upon the current base flood elevation for the location of the proposed action as determined under the procedures of 44 C.F.R. Part 9, with the addition of freeboard to account for uncertainties in future conditions.  A freeboard of two feet must be added to the current base flood elevation to establish the vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal FFRMS-FVA floodplain.

      2.       For all FEMA Federally Funded Projects that are critical actions, FEMA will use, at a minimum, the FFRMS-FVA to establish the vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal FFRMS-FVA floodplain.  A freeboard of three feet must be added to the current base flood elevation to establish the vertical flood elevation and corresponding horizontal FFRMS-FVA floodplain.

      3.       For proposed FEMA Federally Funded Projects which are critical actions, the applicant may elect to use the FFRMS-CISA instead of the FFRMS-FVA if the elevation reached using the FFRMS-CISA is higher than the elevation reached using the FFRMS-FVA.  FEMA encourages use of the FFRMS-CISA where actionable science is available, and where the FFRMS-CISA elevation is higher than the FFRMS-FVA elevation.

           a.            FEMA may consider information presented by the applicant or any other Federal agency in this evaluation.

           b.            The FFRMS-CISA should consider the best available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods which integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate and related science.  These data and methods may come from Federal, State, Tribal, local, or other sources.  FEMA will evaluate whether the FFRMS-CISA methodology is appropriate for the action being considered and meets the criteria of actionable science.

      4.       FEMA may not take an action if it is inconsistent with the criteria of the NFIP or any more restrictive Federal, State, or local floodplain management standards.

Figure 1: Process to Establish the Appropriate Floodplain to Use for the Eight-Step Decision Making Process

Figure 2: Eight-step Decision-making Process for EO 11988, as amended by EO 13690

      A. PHASE 2: COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
      Outcome: FEMA coordinates with other Federal agencies to select an approach of the FFRMS appropriate to the action when engaging in a FEMA Federally Funded Project with, or in the same area as another Federal agency.

      1.       When multiple Federal agencies are conducting, supporting (including funding), or permitting projects in the same geographic area, early coordination is essential to avoid the potential for conflicting standards being applied within the same geographic area or on the same project.

                  a.            Accordingly, when FEMA is funding a Federally Funded Project with or in the same area as another Federal agency, FEMA will coordinate with the applicable Federal agencies as early in the planning process as possible to coordinate the application of EO 11988, as amended by EO 13690.

                  b.            When coordinating with other Federal agencies, FEMA may elect to use the FFRMS approach of another Federal agency to establish the vertical flood elevation and corresponding FFRMS floodplain.

      2.       In a declared major disaster, the Unified Federal Review (UFR) process offers additional coordination opportunities for FEMA and other Federal agencies.  FEMA, as a party to the memorandum of understanding establishing the UFR process, has committed to exercising flexibility in conducting environmental reviews.  FEMA has agreed to a provision in this memorandum of understanding that allows for higher-level resolution in instances where agreement on a common approach reaches an impasse.

____________________________________
Signatory's Name
Title

____________________________________
Date
                            ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

     REVIEW CYCLE
     FEMA Policy 078-3 Guidance for Implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard will be reviewed, reissued, revised, or rescinded within 4 years of the issue date.

     AUTHORITIES
        A. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management
        B.      Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input
        C. 44 C.F.R. Part 9

     REFERENCES
        A.      Water Resources Council.  Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input, October 2015.

     DEFINITIONS
     1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Elevation or Base Flood Elevation: the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the 1 percent annual chance or base flood.  The specific term "base flood elevation" or BFE is used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and on the flood profiles in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Reports to indicate the minimum level of flooding to be used by a community in its floodplain management regulations.

     Action:  any action or activity including: (a) acquiring, managing and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (b) providing federally undertaken, financed or assisted construction and improvements; and (c) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including, but not limited to, water and related land resources, planning, regulating and licensing activities.

     Actionable Science: theories, data, analyses, models, projections, scenarios, and tools that are:
      *            Relevant to the decision under consideration;
      *            Reliable in terms of its scientific or engineering basis and appropriate level of peer review;
      *            Understandable to those making the decision;
      *            Supportive of decisions across wide spatial, temporal, and organizational ranges, including those of time-sensitive operational and capital investment decision-making; and
      *            Co-produced by scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers, who create rigorous and accessible products that meet the needs of stakeholders.

     Critical Action: an action for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great. Critical actions include, but are not limited to, those which create or extend the useful life of structures or facilities: (a) Such as those which produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic or water-reactive materials; (b) Such as hospitals and nursing homes, and housing for the elderly, which are likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid the loss of life or injury during flood and storm events; (c) Such as emergency operation centers, or data storage centers which contain records or services that may become lost or inoperative during flood and storm events; and (d) Such as generating plants, and other principal points of utility lines.

     Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS): the national flood risk management standard established by Executive Order 13690 to be incorporated into existing processes used to implement Executive Order 11988.

     Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) floodplain: the area subject to flooding as determined by one of the following approaches:
                a.             Climate-informed Science Approach (CISA): The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using a Climate-informed science approach that uses the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science. This approach will also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis.
                b.             Freeboard Value Approach (FVA): The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the base flood elevation for critical actions.
                c.             "0.2 Percent Annual Chance" Flood Approach (0.2PFA): The area subject to flooding by the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood.
                d.             The elevation and flood hazard area that results from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.

     Federally Funded Projects: actions where Federal funds are used for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to structures or facilities.

     MONITORING AND EVALUATION
     The Mitigation Framework Leadership Group is responsible for reassessing the FFRMS annually and providing recommendations to the Water Resources Council, which will issue an update to the FFRMS at least every 5 years.  The FEMA Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (OEHP) in coordination with FEMA Programs that provide Federal funding will specifically monitor the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group's reviews and updates to the FFRMS and will update this policy as necessary.

     QUESTIONS
Direct questions to OEHP at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33274-33275]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0353; FRL-9316-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Area Sources: Electric
Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2010-0353, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia A. Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30813), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0353, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2277.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0608.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2011. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY. Owners or
operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report
of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports,
at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of electric arc
furnace steelmaking facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 91.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, semiannually and occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,481.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $138,991, which includes $138,991 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and no operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in Respondent labor
hours and an increase in labor cost. This is due to the fact that the
rule for this subpart is now fully implemented. The previous ICR
covered the initial phase of standard implementation which occurred
over a three-year period. This ICR shows the labor hour and cost burden
after full implementation. There have been no program changes.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
John Moses, Director,
Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-14196 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79261-79266]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31882]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705; FRL-9939-75-Region 5]

Air Quality Implementation Plan Approval; Illinois; Illinois
Power Holdings and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen Variance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving into
the Illinois Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) a variance
for the electrical generating units (EGUs) included in the Ameren
Multi-Pollutant Standard Group (Ameren MPS Group). The Ameren MPS Group
consists of five facilities owned by Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH)
and two facilities owned by AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC
(Medina Valley). The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
submitted the variance to EPA for approval on September 3, 2014.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 24, 2011, Illinois submitted a plan to address the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, as codified at 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA approved Illinois' Regional Haze SIP on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39943).
In its approval, EPA determined that the emission reductions from
sources included in the Illinois plan are significantly greater than
even conservative definitions of best available retrofit technology
(BART) applied to BART subject units. Id. at 39946. EPA also addressed
whether the Illinois plan can also be expected to achieve greater
visibility protection than application of BART on BART-subject units.
Given that, in general, the Illinois power plants are substantial
distances from any Class I area, and given that the averaging in
Illinois' plan is only authorized within the somewhat limited region
within which each utility's plants are located, EPA determined that a
reallocation of emission reductions from one plant to another is
unlikely to change the visibility impact of those emission reductions
significantly. Consequently, EPA concluded that the significantly
greater emission reductions that Illinois required in its Regional Haze
SIP will yield greater progress toward visibility protection as
compared to the benefits of a conservative estimate of BART.
    One of the rules approved in that action to meet BART requirements
is 35 Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) rule 225.233,
Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS), specifically subsections (a), (b), (e),
and (g). Section 225.233(e)(3)(C) contains the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emission standards applicable to the Ameren MPS Group.
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(i) establishes an overall SO2
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.50 pounds
per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) for calendar years 2010 through 2013.
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(ii) establishes an overall SO2
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.43 lb/mmBtu
for calendar year 2014. Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) establishes an
overall SO2 annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS
group of 0.25 lb/mmBtu for calendar years 2015 and 2016. Section
225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) establishes an overall SO2 annual
emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.23 lb/mmBtu
beginning in calendar year 2017 and continuing each calendar year
thereafter.
    On November 21, 2013, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
granted IPH and Medina Valley a variance from the applicable
requirements of Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) for a period beginning
January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, and Section
225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) for a period beginning January 1, 2017, through
December 31, 2019, subject to certain conditions. The IPH facilities
included in the Ameren MPS Group and subject to the variance are
Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy Center
(Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County), Joppa
Energy Center (Massac County), and Newton Energy Center (Jasper
County). The Medina Valley facilities included in the Ameren MPS Group
and subject to the variance are the Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan
County) and the Hutsonville Energy Center (Crawford County). IEPA
submitted the variance as a revision to the Illinois Regional Haze SIP
on September 3, 2014.
    EPA proposed to approve the variance on April 20, 2015 (80 FR
21681). As discussed in the proposal, the variance results in less
SO2 emissions than the currently approved Regional Haze SIP.
Id. at 21683. In addition, EPA determined that the significantly lower
SO2 emissions under the variance versus application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) to BART-subject sources, will yield
greater progress toward visibility protection. Id. at 21684. Finally,
with respect to the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7410(l)), because the variance will result in less
SO2 emissions than the currently approved Regional Haze SIP
and will continue to provide better visibility protection than the
application of BART to BART-subject units, EPA has determined that the
variance will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Id. at 21684.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received joint adverse comments from Earthjustice and Sierra
Club, as summarized in the comments/responses below.
    Comment 1: The proposed SIP revision unlawfully substitutes fleet-
wide emission limits for the unit-specific five factor BART analysis
required by the CAA.
    Response 1: Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7491(b)(2)(A), requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain existing
major stationary sources procure, install, and operate BART, as
determined by the state. In some cases, this requirement is met with an
analysis of potential controls for each source subject to BART
considering five factors set out in EPA's regional haze rule. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). However, as described in several previous rules,
EPA has concluded that CAA section 169A may reasonably be interpreted
to provide that the requirement for BART may be satisfied by an
alternate program that provides greater reasonable progress toward
visibility improvement than direct application of BART to individual
sources determined to be subject to the BART requirement. See 40 CFR
51.308(e), 64 FR 35714, 35741-35743 (July 1, 1999), 70 FR 39104, 39136
(July 6, 2005), 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006), and 77 FR 33642 (June
7, 2012).

    In 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule, which established
a comprehensive visibility protection program for mandatory Class I
Federal areas (including many national parks and wilderness areas). In
the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, EPA stated that, to demonstrate
that emission reductions of an alternative program would result in
greater emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission
reductions that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do
this, the State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources
in the State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
    In a final rule revising certain provisions of the Regional Haze
Rule published on October 13, 2006, EPA offered further clarification
for states for assessing alternative strategies, in particular
regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging whether
the alternative is better. 71 FR 60612. In this rulemaking, EPA stated
in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels given in the BART
guidelines \1\ would be a suitable baseline against which to compare
alternative strategies, where the alternatives have been designed to
meet a requirement other than BART. Id. at 60619; see also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). As described in the EPA's proposed approval of the
Illinois variance, EPA took a more conservative approach and compared
emissions under the variance to the application of typical BACT control
levels to the BART subject units in the Ameren MPS Group.\2\ 80 FR
21681, 21683 (April 20, 2015). In brief, EPA found that the alternative
restrictions imposed by Illinois under the variance can be demonstrated
to provide greater emission reductions and greater visibility
improvement than conservative definitions of BART, even without a full
analysis of the emission levels that constitute BART. The demonstration
is discussed below, in the context of response to comments addressing
the magnitude of emission reductions under the variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The BART guidelines are contained in Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 and identify the presumptive SO2 limits for
utility boilers as 0.15 lbs/MMBtu or 95 percent control.
    \2\ BACT limits are imposed on new units or units undergoing
major modifications. Therefore, BART limits, which by definition
apply to relatively old existing units, are unlikely to be lower
than the limits that would apply to a new unit and would in many
cases be significantly higher. For this analysis, a SO2
limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu was determined to be representative of
typical BACT for utility boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The plain language of the CAA ``provides that EPA's
regulations `shall require' each SIP to contain various elements, and
those elements must include BART as a minimum requirement of every haze
SIP.'' The CAA does not permit a state to exempt units from BART
without going through the exemption process outlined in the statute.
The statute specifies the only circumstances in which a source may be
exempted from BART, none of which apply here. 42 U.S.C. 7491(c). The
CAA provision that allows some limited exemptions from BART makes plain
that any such exemption must be assessed and determined on a source-
specific, not a state-wide basis. Id. at 7491(c)(1). Furthermore, EPA
may exempt a unit from the source-specific BART requirements of the CAA
only where the Federal Land Managers concur with the EPA determination
of an exemption. Id. at 7491(c)(3).
    Response 2: We do not agree that the provisions governing
exemptions to BART apply. Neither the Illinois Regional Haze SIP
previously approved by EPA nor the revisions to that SIP contained in
the variance being approved in this action exempt BART-eligible sources
from BART requirements, but rather satisfy the BART requirements
through the adoption of an alternative program that provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving visibility.
    Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 9491(b)(2), requires each
visibility SIP to contain ``such emission limits, schedules of
compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal * * * including * * * a
requirement that [certain major stationary sources] * * * procure,
install, and operate * * * [BART].'' Based on this language, EPA
concluded in the Regional Haze Rule that if an alternative program can
be shown to make greater reasonable progress toward eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment, then installing BART for the purpose of
making reasonable progress toward the national goal is no longer
necessary. 64 FR 35714, 35739 (July 1, 1999).
    This interpretation of the visibility provisions of the CAA has
been previously challenged and upheld by the D.C. Circuit. In the first
case challenging the provisions in the Regional Haze Rule allowing for
states to adopt alternative programs in lieu of BART, the court
affirmed EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``CEED'')
(finding reasonable EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) as
requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). In the
second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C.
Cir. 2006) (``UARG''), the court specifically upheld EPA's
determination that states could rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(``CAIR'') as an alternative program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-
affected states. The court concluded that the EPA's two-pronged test
for determining whether an alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress was a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that
nothing in the CAA required the EPA to ``impose a separate technology
mandate for sources whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than
piggy-backing on solutions devised under other statutory categories,
where such solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' Id. at 1340.
See also Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 F.2d
1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding EPA's interpretation of CAA
section 169A(b)(2)).
    Comment 3: An interpretation of the statute which allows a state to
substitute an alternative for BART on a state-wide or fleet-wide basis
cannot be reconciled with Congress specifying very narrow standards for
exempting a source from BART. If EPA relies on the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals decisions upholding its interpretation of the statute, ``the
cases are incorrect in that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has
rewritten the statute by failing to give effect to the plain language
requiring each SIP to include BART and by disregarding the very
specific parameters in the statute for exemptions from BART.'' In
addition, ``these decisions are not binding precedent in the 7th
Circuit, which has jurisdiction over EPA's approval of the Illinois
Regional Haze SIP.''
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that BART alternatives
are impermissible under the CAA. As the commenter notes, EPA's
interpretation that the CAA allows States to devise alternative
programs in lieu of source-specific BART was upheld in both the CEED
and UARG decisions. The conclusions in these cases have not been upset
or overturned by any subsequent decision of the D.C. Circuit, and we
disagree with the commenter's contention that CEED and UARG were
decided erroneously. The D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over
the review of nationally applicable rules. The Illinois' SIP has been
evaluated

against nationally applicable rules (upheld by the D.C. Circuit) that
allow States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of BART.
    Comment 4: The IEPA has not met its burden to show that the Multi-
Pollutant Standard is approvable as a BART alternative because it has
not performed modeling of the visibility impacts for the MPS compared
to BART. ``By design, the MPS allows the flexibility to implement
emissions reductions other than by imposing uniform reductions at
specific units subject to BART.'' There is, therefore, no basis for
claiming that the distribution of emissions under the MPS is not
substantially different than under BART. Instead, the MPS limits can be
met in such a way that the distribution of emissions is significantly
different than it would be if its subject-to-BART units had to meet
unit specific BART limits. ``If the distribution of emissions is
significantly different under an alternate program, a state must
conduct visibility modeling in order to meet its burden of securing
approval for the alternative program.''
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter that visibility
modeling is required. EPA found in its original approval of Illinois'
BART plan that the distances from the relevant power plants to the
affected Class I areas are substantial and that the averaging in
Illinois' plan is only allowed within somewhat limited regions. Given
this, EPA concluded that ``a reallocation of emission reductions from
one plant to another is unlikely to change the impact of those emission
reductions significantly'' and that the much greater emission
reductions from Illinois' plan will result in greater reasonable
progress than would source-specific BART controls. 77 FR 39946. The
commenter has provided no evidence that EPA's conclusion that the
greater reductions in emissions from these facilities under the terms
of the variance should lead to a different conclusion.
    The commenter points to a test set out in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
support its argument that visibility modeling is necessary to determine
whether an alternative to BART provides for greater reasonable
progress. States are not required to use this test, however, as 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) makes clear: A demonstration that an alternative
measure will make greater reasonable progress may be based on the clear
weight of evidence. Although there is no requirement that States use
the test in 51.308(e)(3), EPA nevertheless reexamined whether modeling
is necessary to conclude that the greater emission reductions of
Illinois' revised plan provide for better visibility than imposition of
source-specific BART. There are seven facilities in the Ameren MPS
Group: Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy
Center (Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County),
Joppa Energy Center (Massac County), Newton Energy Center (Jasper
County), Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan County) and Hutsonville Energy
Center (Crawford County). Of these facilities, only Coffeen, Duck
Creek, and E.D. Edwards were determined to be subject to BART. The
least distance from any of these three BART-subject sources to any
Class I area is from Coffeen to the Mingo Wilderness Area, a distance
of about 240 kilometers (km). Duck Creek and E.D. Edwards are
approximately 390 km and 410 km, respectively, from the Mingo
Wilderness area. The distance from the Mingo Wilderness Area to
remaining Ameren MPS Group facilities ranges from approximately 120 km
to 330 km, with an average distance of 260 km. Further, an evaluation
for the Class I areas within 500 km of any Ameren MPS Group source
shows that in every case the average distance from the BART-subject
facilities is greater than the average distance from the facilities
that would not be subject to BART. That is, even if Illinois' plan
achieved no more emission reductions than source-specific BART, the
plan would likely yield better visibility because the reductions would
likely be reallocated to closer plants. Given these distances and given
the relative location of these facilities, a reallocation of emission
reductions from one plant to another among this group is unlikely to
change the visibility impact of these emission reductions meaningfully.
As noted above, however, the Illinois plan (originally and as revised)
achieves significantly greater reductions than source-specific BART.
Consequently, in these circumstances, EPA is confident that visibility
modeling is not necessary to conclude that the significantly greater
emission reductions that are required under the variance will yield
greater progress toward visibility protection as compared to the
benefits of a conservative estimate of BART.
    Comment 5: The variance from the MPS authorizes the IPH fleet to
emit greater SO2 emissions than would be emitted if BART
were required, and thus EPA cannot find that the MPS will lead to
greater reasonable progress than would BART.
    Of the seven plants included in the original Ameren MPS Group, five
plants still in operation are now owned and operated by IPH and two
plants that retired in 2011, Hutsonville and Meredosia, are now owned
by Medina Valley and are no longer part of the fleet. Because of the
variance, the MPS will no longer require SO2 reductions from
the IPH coal fleet during the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze (i.e., before 2018) that are greater than the
reductions that would result from requiring IPH to install and operate
BART on its BART-subject plants.
    The commenter supports this assertion by comparing emissions
reductions from the variance to emissions reductions from BACT at BART-
subject facilities, excluding emissions reductions from the retired
Meredosia and Hutsonville units (now owned by Medina Valley) and
emissions reductions from the Edwards Unit 1 (owned by IPH). The
commenter states that these sources were not included in the analysis
because Meredosia and Hutsonville ``have been retired for several years
due to economic reasons,'' and Edwards Unit 1 is currently being
operated only for grid reliability purposes subject to a short-term
System Support Resource agreement with the Midcontinent Independent
System Operator (MISO). The commenter argues that the MPS is not
driving emissions reductions at those sources and they should not be
included in any analysis of emissions reductions at the IPH fleet. The
commenter's analysis shows that, in 2017, implementation of BART at
BART-subject sources would reduce SO2 emissions by 74,348
tons and the variance would reduce SO2 by 69,555 tons.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA
cannot find that the MPS will lead to greater reasonable progress than
would BART. The premise of the commenter's analysis, that only
currently operating units in the IPH fleet should be evaluated, is
flawed. As discussed above, the requirement for BART may be satisfied
by an alternate program that provides greater reasonable progress
toward visibility improvement than direct application of BART to
individual sources determined to be subject to the BART requirement.
The alternate program being evaluated, as contained in the MPS and
revised by the variance, applies to the seven sources in the Ameren MPS
Group, not only to the five sources currently owned and operated by
IPH.
    The variance prohibits the Meredosia and Hutsonville power stations
from operating until after December 31, 2020, at which point they would
remain subject to the emission limits in the MPS. In addition, the
variance requires IPH to permanently retire E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as soon
as allowed by MISO. The

fact that there are reasons other than the MPS that influenced the
decisions to cease operation of these plants does not change the fact
that under the currently approved Regional Haze SIP these sources are
permitted to operate. The variance makes these shutdowns enforceable
and prohibits emissions that would otherwise have been allowed under
the SIP. Further, these facilities ceased operating late in 2011, well
after the 2000-2004 baseline established in the Regional Haze Rule (40
CFR 51.308(d)(2)) and before the 2017 deadline for implementing BART
controls in Illinois, so the emission reductions from the shutdown of
these facilities are fully creditable. Therefore, comparing emission
reductions at all seven Ameren MPS Group sources under the variance to
emission reductions from application of BACT limits to BART-subject
units is the appropriate test for determining whether the alternate
program would result in greater emission reductions.
    The analysis included by EPA in the proposed rule shows
SO2 emission reductions of 74,348 tons in 2017 if typical
BACT limits were applied to BART subject sources and SO2
emission reductions of 119,833 tons in 2017 under the variance. 80 FR
21683-21684. The analysis is conservative in that it assumes that E.D.
Edwards Unit 1 is still operating, since an absolute shutdown date was
not included in the variance. Further, even assuming that the
22,360,000 MMBtu previously generated at Meredosia and Hutsonville were
shifted to the five remaining facilities in the Ameren MPS Group,
applying the 0.35 pound/MMBtu group average emission limit results in
an additional 3,913 tons of SO2 emissions under the variance
in 2017, or a total of 54,188 tons of SO2. Thus,
SO2 emissions reductions in 2017 under the variance would be
115,920 tons, which is still 41,572 fewer tons of SO2
emissions than what the SO2 emissions would be if BACT were
applied at BART-subject sources.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of the IPH and Medina Valley variance
submitted by IEPA on September 3, 2014, as a revision to the Illinois
Regional Haze SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the 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);
     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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 24, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(207) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (207) On September 3, 2014, Illinois submitted a variance to its
regional haze state implementation plan affecting the electrical
generating units (EGUs) included in the Ameren Multi-Pollutant Standard
Group (Ameren MPS Group). The Ameren MPS Group consists of five
facilities owned by Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) and two
facilities owned by AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC (Medina
Valley). The IPH facilities included in the Ameren MPS Group and
subject to the variance include: Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery
County), Duck Creek Energy Center (Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy
Center (Peoria County), Joppa Energy Center (Massac County), and Newton
Energy Center (Jasper County). The Medina Valley facilities included in
the Ameren MPS Group and subject to the variance are the Meredosia
Energy Center (Morgan County) and the Hutsonville Energy Center
(Crawford County).
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Illinois Pollution Control Board Order PCB 14-10, adopted on
November 21, 2013; Certificate of Acceptance, filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Clerk's Office December 20, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2015-31882 Filed 12-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51043-51044]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3529-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Hawaii (FEMA-3529-EM), dated July 25, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 7, 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 emergency is closed effective July 27, 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. 2020-18063 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Increase - requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element will affect suppliers or ~104 reporters annually.

98.416(k)
For nitrous oxide, saturated perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and fluorinated heat transfer fluids as defined at §98.6, report the aggregated annual quantity of that GHG or fluorinated HTF in metric tons that is transferred to that end use application, if known.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element will affect suppliers or ~104 reporters annually.
Subpart PP - Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide
98.426(h)(1)
If you capture a CO2 stream from a facility that is subject this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR or subpart VV of this part, the facility identification number associated with the annual GHG report for the facility that is the source of the captured CO2 stream.
Revised
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element will affect subpart PP reporters that would be required to report CO2 transferred to facilities reporting under subparts RR (~ 9 facilities) or VV (~2 facilities) annually.

98.426(h)(2)
If you capture a CO2 stream from a facility that is subject this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR or subpart VV of this part, each facility identification number associated with the annual GHG reports for each subpart RR and subpart VV facility to which CO2 is transferred
Revised
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element will affect subpart PP reporters that would be required to report CO2 transferred to facilities reporting under subparts RR (~ 9 facilities) or VV (~2 facilities) annually.

98.426(h)(3)
If you capture a CO2 stream from a facility that is subject this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR or subpart VV of this part, the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each subpart RR and subpart VV facility
Revised
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element will affect subpart PP reporters that would be required to report CO2 transferred to facilities reporting under subparts RR (~ 9 facilities) or VV (~2 facilities) annually.
Subpart QQ - Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams
98.436(a)(7)
For each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams, the harmonized tariff system (HTS) code for each type of pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam imported.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to bulk importers and will affect ~33 reporters annually.

98.436(a)(8)
For each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams, a copy of the corresponding U.S. Customs entry form for each reported import.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to bulk importers and will affect ~33 reporters annually.

98.436(b)(7)
For each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams, the schedule B code for each type of pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam imported.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to bulk exporters and will affect ~28 reporters annually.
WW  -  Coke Calciners
98.496(a)
The unit ID number (if applicable).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(b)
Maximum rated throughput of the unit, in metric tons coke calcined/stream day.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(c)
The calculated CO2, CH4, and N2O annual process emissions, expressed in metric tons of each pollutant emitted.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(d)
A description of the method used to calculate the CO2 emissions for each unit (e.g., CEMS or Equation WW-1).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.
WW  -  Coke Calciners
98.496(e)
Annual mass of green coke fed to the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.
WW  -  Coke Calciners

98.496(f)
Annual mass of marketable petroleum coke produced by the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(g)
Annual mass of petroleum coke dust removed from the process through the dust collection system of the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year) and an indication of whether coke dust is recycled to the unit (e.g., all dust is recycled, a portion of the dust is recycled, or none of the dust is recycled).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(h)
Annual average mass fraction carbon content of green coke fed to the coke calcining unit from facility measurement data (metric tons C per metric ton green coke).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.

98.496(i)
Annual average mass fraction carbon content of marketable petroleum coke produced by the coke calcining unit from facility measurement data (metric tons C per metric ton petroleum coke).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all coke calciners and will affect ~15 reporters annually.
XX  -  Calcium Carbide Production

98.506(a)
Annual facility calcium carbide production capacity (tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(b)
The annual facility production of calcium carbide (tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily or collected available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(c)
Total number of calcium carbide process units at facility used for production of calcium carbide.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(d)
Annual facility consumption of petroleum coke (tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(e)
Each end use of any calcium carbide produced and sent off site.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to all calcium carbide operations and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(f)
If the facility produces acetylene on site, the information in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3).
(1) The annual production of acetylene at the facility (tons).
(2) The annual quantity of calcium carbide used for the production of acetylene at the facility (tons).
(3) Each end use of any acetylene produced on site.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available  or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.
XX  -  Calcium Carbide Production
98.506(g)
If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, the relevant information required by § 98.36 for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology and the information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(1) Annual CO2 emissions (in metric tons) from each calcium carbide process unit.
(2) Identification number of each process unit.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.

98.506(h)
If a CEMS is not used to measure CO2 process emissions, and the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b),  the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Annual process CO2 emissions (in metric tons) from each calcium carbide process unit.
(2) The method used for the determination of carbon content for each input and output material included in the calculation of annual process CO2 emissions for each calcium carbide process unit (e.g., supplier provided information, analyses of representative samples you collected).
(3) If you use the missing data procedures in § 98.505(b), report for each calcium carbide production process unit how monthly mass of carbon-containing inputs and outputs with missing data were determined and the number of months the missing data procedures were used.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all calcium carbide production facilities and will affect ~1 reporter annually.
YY  -  Caprolactam, Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production
98.516(a)
Process line identification number.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(b)
Annual process N2O emissions from each process line according to paragraphs (1) through (3):
(1) N2O from caprolactam production (metric tons).
(2) N2O from glyoxal production (metric tons).
(3) N2O from glyoxylic acid production (metric tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(c)
Annual production quantities from all process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility according to paragraphs (1) through (3):
(1) Caprolactam production (metric tons).
(2) Glyoxal production (metric tons).
(3) Glyoxylic acid production (metric tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.
YY  -  Caprolactam, Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production
98.516(d)
Annual production capacity from all process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility, as applicable, in paragraphs (1) through (3):
(1) Caprolactam production capacity (metric tons).
(2) Glyoxal production capacity (metric tons).
(3) Glyoxylic acid production capacity (metric tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(e)
Number of process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility, by product, in paragraphs (1) through (3):
(1) Total number of process lines producing caprolactam.
(2) Total number of process lines producing glyoxal.
(3) Total number of process lines producing glyoxylic acid.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(f)
Number of operating hours in the calendar year for each process line at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility (hours).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.
YY  -  Caprolactam, Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production
98.516(g)
N2O abatement technologies used (if applicable) and date of installation of abatement technology at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(h)
Monthly abatement utilization factor for each N2O abatement technology at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(i)
Number of times in the reporting year that missing data procedures were followed to measure production quantities of caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid (months).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available  or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.

98.516(j)
Annual percent N2O emission reduction per chemical produced at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility, as applicable, in (1) through (3):
(1) Annual percent N2O emission reduction for caprolactam production.
(2) Annual percent N2O emission reduction for glyoxal production.
(3) Annual percent N2O emission reduction for glyoxylic acid production.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies all caprolactam, glyoxal, and glyoxylic acid production facilities and will affect ~6 reporters annually.
ZZ  -  Coke Calciners
98.526(a)
The total number of ceramics process units at the facility and the number of units that operated during the reporting year.
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to all ceramics production facilities and will affect ~34 reporters annually.

98.526(b)
If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions from ceramics process units, the relevant information required under § 98.36 for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology and the following information specified in paragraphs (1) through (3).
(1) The annual quantity of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each ceramics process unit and for all units combined (tons).
(2) Annual quantity of each type of ceramics product manufactured by each ceramics process unit and by all units combined (tons).
(3) Annual production capacity for each ceramics process unit (tons).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to all ceramics production facilities and will affect ~34 reporters annually.
ZZ  -  Coke Calciners

If a CEMS is not used to measure CO2 emissions from ceramics process units and process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b), the following information specified in paragraphs (1) through (7).
(1) Annual process emissions of CO2 (metric tons) for each ceramics process unit and for all units combined.
(2) The annual quantity of each carbonate-based raw material charged to all units combined (tons).
(3) Results of all tests used to verify each carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a ceramics process unit, as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Date of test.
(ii) Method(s) and any variations used in the analyses.
(iii) Mass fraction of each sample analyzed.
(4) Method used to determine the decimal mass fraction of carbonate-based mineral, unless you used the default value of 1.0 (e.g., supplier provided information, analyses of representative samples you collected).
(5) Annual quantity of each type of ceramics product manufactured by each ceramics process unit and by all units combined (tons).
(6) Annual production capacity for each ceramics process unit (tons).
(7) If you use the missing data procedures in § 98.525(b), report for each applicable ceramics process unit the number of times in the reporting year that missing data procedures were followed to measure monthly quantities of carbonate-based raw materials or mass fraction of the carbonate-based minerals (months).
New
Increase  -  requires respondents to calculate and ascertain the data element using readily available or collected data and submit the value via e-GGRT as part of the annual report. This data element applies to all ceramics production facilities and will affect ~34 reporters annually.

Table 2. New Recordkeeping Requirements by Source Category
                                    Subpart
                        New Recordkeeping Requirements
B  -  Energy Consumption
Copies of all purchased energy or thermal energy product billing statements.

The results of all required certification and quality assurance tests referenced in the MEMP for all purchased electricity or thermal energy product meters used to develop the energy consumption data reported under subpart B.

Maintenance records for all monitoring systems, flow meters, and other instrumentation used to provide data on consumption or purchased electricity or thermal energy products under subpart B.
N  -  Glass Production
If a CEMS is used to measure emissions, monthly amount (tons) of recycled scrap glass (cullet) charged to each glass melting furnace, by glass type.

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in §98.143(b), monthly amount (tons) of recycled scrap glass (cullet) charged to each glass melting furnace, by glass type.
P  -  Hydrogen Production
Records of all analyses and calculations conducted to determine the values reported as listed in §98.166(b).
HH  -  Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Records of the data used to calculate and report the GHG emissions in § 98.346.
WW  -  Coke Calciners
Records of all parameters monitored under § 98.494.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the monthly mass of green coke fed to the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year) (Equation WW-1 of § 98.493).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the monthly mass of marketable petroleum coke produced by the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year) (Equation WW-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the monthly mass of petroleum coke dust removed from the process through the dust collection system of the coke calcining unit from facility records (metric tons/year) (Equation WW-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the average monthly mass fraction carbon content of green coke fed to the coke calcining unit from facility measurement data (metric tons C per metric ton green coke) (Equation WW-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the average monthly mass fraction carbon content of marketable petroleum coke produced by the coke calcining unit from facility measurement data (metric tons C per metric ton petroleum coke) (Equation WW-1).
XX  -  Calcium Carbide Production
If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(a), the records required for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in § 98.37.

If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(a),  monthly calcium carbide process unit production quantity (tons).

If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(a),   number of calcium carbide processing unit operating hours each month.

If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(a),  number of calcium carbide processing unit operating hours in a calendar year.

If the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b)(2), monthly calcium carbide process unit production quantity (tons).

If the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b)(2), number of calcium carbide process unit operating hours each month.
XX  -  Calcium Carbide Production
If the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b)(2), number of calcium carbide process unit operating hours in a calendar year.

If the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b)(2), monthly material quantity consumed, used, or produced for each material included for the calculations of annual process CO2 emissions (tons).

If the carbon mass balance procedure is used to determine CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.503(b)(2), average carbon content determined and records of the supplier provided information or analyses used for the determination for each material included for the calculations of annual process CO2 emissions.

Records that include a detailed explanation of how company records of measurements are used to estimate the carbon input and output to each calcium carbide process unit, including documentation of specific input or output materials excluded from Equation XX-1 that contribute less than 1 percent of the total carbon into or out of the process. Records documenting the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of the measurements of materials fed, charged, or placed in a calcium carbide process unit including, but not limited to, calibration of weighing equipment and other measurement devices; the estimated accuracy of measurements made with these devices; and the technical basis of the estimates.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for carbon content in reducing agent (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation XX-1 of § 98.503).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for annual mass of reducing agent fed, charged, or otherwise introduced into the calcium carbide process unit (tons) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for carbon content of carbon electrode (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for annual mass of carbon electrode consumed in the calcium carbide process unit (tons) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for carbon content in product (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for annual mass of product produced/tapped in the calcium carbide process unit (tons) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for carbon content in non-product outgoing material (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation XX-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for annual mass of non-product outgoing material removed from calcium carbide process unit (tons) (Equation XX-1).
YY  -   Caprolactam,  Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production
Documentation of how accounting procedures were used to estimate production rate.

Documentation of how process knowledge was used to estimate abatement technology destruction efficiency (if applicable).

Documentation of the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of the measurements of all reported parameters, including but not limited to, calibration of weighing equipment, flow meters, and other measurement devices; the estimated accuracy of measurements made with these devices; and the technical basis for these estimates.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for monthly production quantity of caprolactam from all process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for monthly production quantity of glyoxal from all process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for monthly production quantity of glyoxylic acid from all process lines at the caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production facility.
ZZ  -  Ceramics Production
If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.523(a), the records required under § 98.37 for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology.

If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.523(a), records of the monthly ceramics production rate for each ceramics process unit (tons).

If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions according to the requirements in § 98.523(a), records of the monthly amount of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each ceramics process unit (tons).

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b), records of monthly ceramics production rate for each ceramics process unit (metric tons).

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b), records of the monthly amount of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each ceramics process unit (metric tons).

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b),  data on carbonate-based mineral mass fractions provided by the raw material supplier for all raw materials consumed annually and included in calculating process emissions in Equation ZZ-1, if applicable.

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b),  results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a ceramics process unit, including the data specified in paragraphs (i) through (v).
(i) Date of test.
(ii) Method(s), and any variations of methods, used in the analyses.
(iii) Mass fraction of each sample analyzed.
(iv) Relevant calibration data for the instrument(s) used in the analyses.
(v) Name and address of laboratory that conducted the tests.

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b), records of each carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw material, if a value other than 1.0 is used to calculate process mass emissions of CO2.

If process CO2 emissions are calculated according to the procedures specified in § 98.523(b), the number of annual operating hours of each ceramics process unit.

Records of all other documentation used to support the reported GHG emissions.

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the annual average decimal mass fraction of each carbonate-based mineral in each carbonate-based raw material for each ceramics process unit (specify the default value, if used, or the value determined according to § 98.524) (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation ZZ-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the annual mass of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each ceramics process unit (tons) (Equation ZZ-1).

A record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the decimal fraction of calcination achieved for each carbonate-based raw material for each ceramics process unit (specify the default value, if used, or the value determined according to § 98.524) (percent by weight, expressed as a decimal fraction) (Equation ZZ-1).

                            SUPPORTING STATEMENT:
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               OMB control number 2060-0629; ICR number 2300.18
                                 Attachment 2


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8469-8470]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website 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, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Docket No.               File date                          Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Prohibited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP15-558-000..............           2-8-2018  Mass Mailing.\1\
2. P-2100-000................           2-8-2018  Bert Manuel.
3. CP16-116-000, CP16-454-             2-12-2018  Randolph Delay.
 000, CP16-480-000.
4. CP15-558-000..............          2-12-2018  Mass Mailing.\2\
5. CP15-558-000..............          2-13-2018  Mass Mailing.\3\
6. CP15-558-000..............          2-14-2018  Mass Mailing.\4\
7. CP15-558-000..............          2-15-2018  Mass Mailing.\5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P-2660-029................           2-7-2018  State of Maine Governor Paul R. LePage.
2. P-2660-029................           2-8-2018  U.S. House Representative Bruce Poliquin.

3. P-2100-000................          2-12-2018  City of Oroville, California, Office of the City Council.
4. P-459-000.................          2-14-2018  U.S. Senator Roy Blunt.
5. CP16-10-000, CP15-554-000.          2-14-2018  U.S. House Representatives.\6\
6. CP15-93-000...............          2-15-2018  U.S. Congress.\7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.
\2\ Four letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.
\3\ Seven letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.
\4\ Two letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.
\5\ Eights letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.
\6\ Representatives Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott and A. Donald McEachin.
\7\ Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. and Senator Maria Cantwell.

    Dated: February 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03970 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P