Air Pollution Control: Proposed Action on Clean Air Act Grants to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Proposed Determination With Request for Comments; and a Notice of Opportunity for a Public Hearing, 20625-20629 [2012-8200]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Notices
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.
The ICR provides a detailed
explanation of the Agency’s estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential
respondents: 1403.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Estimated total average number of
responses for each respondent: 1.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
578,381 hours.
Estimated total annual costs:
$38,057,653 including $37,384,641
annualized labor costs and $673,012
annualized capital or O&M costs.
What is the next step in the process for
this ICR?
EPA will consider the comments
received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will
then be submitted to OMB for review
and approval pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to
OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you
have any questions about this ICR or the
approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: March 28, 2012.
Suzanne Rudzinski,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2012–8201 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0211; FRL–9655–5]
Air Pollution Control: Proposed Action
on Clean Air Act Grants to the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality;
Proposed Determination With Request
for Comments; and a Notice of
Opportunity for a Public Hearing
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; Proposed determination
with request for comments; and a notice
of opportunity for a public hearing.
AGENCY:
The U.S. EPA has made a
proposed determination that reduction
in expenditures of non-Federal funds for
the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) in support of its
continuing air program under Clean Air
Act (CAA) Section 105 for the period of
calendar year 2010 was not selective
relative to the expenditures of all other
executive branch agencies in the State
for the same period. This determination,
when final, will reset IDEQ’s required
recipient maintenance of effort level for
2010 and 2011, retain its federal award
for the 2010 and 2011 grant years, and
allow IDEQ to remain eligible for a § 105
grant for 2012 and beyond.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for a
public hearing must be received by EPA
at the address stated below by May 7,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2012–0211, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov, Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: McGown.Michael@epa.gov
• Mail: Michael McGown, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1435 North Orchard, Boise,
ID 83706.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael McGown, Region 10, Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard,
Boise, ID 83706, phone: (208)–378–
5764, fax: (208)–378–5744, or email
address at mcgown.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides
grant support for the continuing air
programs of eligible state, local and
tribal agencies. Section 105 contains
two cost-sharing provisions to initially
qualify for a § 105 grant under
§ 105(a)(1)(A). An eligible entity must
meet a minimum match and to remain
eligible for Section 105 grant funds, an
eligible entity must continue to meet the
match as well as meet a maintenance of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20625
effort (MOE) requirement under
§ 105(c)(1). The match requires that at
least 2⁄5 of the total costs for approved
§ 105 program activities must be paid by
the state/local recipient. Program
activities relevant to the match consist
of both recurring and non-recurring
(unique, one-time only) expenses.
The MOE provision requires that a
state or local agency spend at least the
same dollar level of funds as it did in
the previous grant year but only for the
costs of recurring activities. Specifically,
§ 105(c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1)],
provides that ‘‘no agency shall receive
any grant under this section during any
fiscal year when its expenditures of
non-Federal funds for recurrent
expenditures for air pollution control
programs will be less than its
expenditures were for such programs
during the preceding fiscal year.
Pursuant to CAA § 105(c)(2), however,
EPA may still award a grant to an
agency not meeting the requirements of
§ 105(c)(1), ‘‘if the Administrator, after
notice and opportunity for public
hearing, determines that a reduction in
expenditures is attributable to a nonselective reduction in the expenditures
in the programs of all Executive branch
agencies of the applicable unit of
Government.’’ These statutory
requirements are repeated in EPA’s
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
35.140 through 35.148.
EPA issued additional guidance to
recipients on what constitutes a
nonselective reduction on September
30, 2011. In consideration of legislative
history, the guidance clarified that a
non-selective reduction does not
necessarily mean that each Executive
branch agency need be reduced in equal
proportion. However, it must be clear to
EPA, from the weight of evidence, that
a recipient’s CAA-related air program is
not being disproportionately impacted
or singled out for a reduction.
A § 105 recipient must submit a final
financial status report no later than 90
days from the close of its grant period
that documents all of its federal and
non-federal expenditures for the
completed period. The recipient seeking
an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the
documentation necessary to enable EPA
to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred. In
order to expedite that determination, the
recipient must provide details of the
budget action and the comparative fiscal
impacts on all the jurisdiction’s
executive branch agencies, the recipient
agency itself, and the agency’s air
program. The recipient should identify
any executive branch agencies or
programs that should be excepted from
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
20626
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Notices
comparison and explain why. The
recipient must provide evidence that the
air program is not being singled out for
a reduction or being disproportionately
reduced. Documentation in two key
areas will be needed: Budget data
specific to the recipient’s air program
and comparative budget data between
the recipient’s air program, the agency
containing the air program and the other
executive branch agencies. EPA may
also request information from the
recipient about how impacts on the its
program operations will affect its ability
to meet its CAA obligations and
requirements.
In the case of IDEQ, EPA provides
annual grant funding under the
authority CAA § 105 to help IDEQ
support the operation of its CAA-related
continuing air pollution control
program. IDEQ’s § 105 annual grant
period is based on the calendar year and
as such is always impacted by two State
budget years since the annual Idaho
state budget cycle runs from July 1 of
the current through June 30 of the
following year. For the 2010 grant year
EPA awarded the IDEQ $1,497,516 in
§ 105 funds. This represented 27.8% of
the total approved program funding
based on IDEQ’s stated prospective
contribution of $3,891,016 in its own
non-federal funds to cover the costs of
both non-recurring and recurring
activities. The State’s portion of the total
recurring costs was to have been at least
$3,842,589. This was the State’s final
level of recurrent expenditures for the
2009 grant year and constituted the
required MOE level for the 2010 grant
year.
However, on March 8, 2011, IDEQ
informed EPA in writing that due to
continued reductions in the State’s
overall budget for executive branch
agencies, particularly in the State’s
SFY2011 budget (which funded the last
6 months of the calendar year 2010
grant), IDEQ would fall short of its
required MOE level by $452,789. The
resulting contribution of $3,389,800
would be 11.78% below the required
level. EPA examined the IDEQ’s request
and confirmed that its 2010 final
financial status report indicated a State
contribution level of $3,389,800 of
recurrent expenditures.
In its March 8, 2011 letter to EPA,
IDEQ requested an adjustment of its
2010 MOE level based upon a nonselective reduction. IDEQ also sought to
retain its 2011 § 105 award based on this
lowered recipient contribution level. In
support of its request IDEQ provided
legislative appropriations information
on State general fund levels by major
departmental categories for the 2009,
2010 and 2011 budget years. In June,
July and October of 2011, EPA requested
additional clarifying information from
IDEQ on the full range of state-only
executive branch, IDEQ and air program
appropriations and expenses for the
2010 grant period. IDEQ supplied
additional information to EPA on July
21, July 25, October 17, October 27, and
November 15th that further
distinguished general fund, dedicated
fund and federal stimulus resources. On
November 28 and November 30, 2011
IDEQ further clarified its direct and
indirect air program expenditures
compared to changes in overall IDEQ
environmental program expenditure
levels, overall State general fund levels
and overall State appropriations levels
for the affected period. A summary of
this information is shown in the tables
below.
TABLE 1—IDEQ GENERAL FUND CHANGES FROM SFY 2009 THROUGH SFY 2010
[Final amounts in $s]
IDEQ budget unit
2009
2010
Difference
% Change
Administration (Recurring Appropriation)* .......................................................
Administration (One Time Appropriation)* .......................................................
Air Program (Recurring Appropriation) ............................................................
Air Program (One Time Appropriation) ............................................................
Water Program (Recurring Appropriation) .......................................................
Water Program (One Time Appropriation) ......................................................
Waste Program (Recurring Appropriation) ......................................................
Waste Program (One Time Appropriation) ......................................................
INL Oversight Program ....................................................................................
Coeur D’Alene Basin Commission ..................................................................
3,115,800
47,700
3,075,700
1,023,700
7,847,700
36,000
2,769,200
0
164,500
98,400
2,823,700
0
2,769,200
32,000
6,012,700
120,000
2,450,500
0
103,400
104,300
¥292,000
¥47,700
¥306,500
¥991,700
¥1,835000
84,000
¥318,700
0
¥61,100
5,900
¥9.37
¥100.00
¥9.97
¥96.87
¥23.38
233.33
¥11.51
n/a
¥37.14
6.00
Total: Recurring Appropriation ..................................................................
Total: One Time Appropriation .................................................................
Total: IDEQ ...............................................................................................
17.071,300
1,107,400
18,178,700
14,263,800
152,000
14,415,800
¥2,807,500
¥955,400
¥3,762,900
¥16.45
¥86.27
¥20.70
Tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Notes: Table reflects comparison of general funds only. Dedicated state funds (e.g., non-Title V permit fees) are not included. Administration
costs also need to be attributed to the various other program units. Addition of these funds would bring state recurring air totals for 2009 and
2010 to $3,842,589 and $3,389,800, respectively. Federal funds including ARRA funds are not included.
Table 1 compares overall IDEQ
general funds expenses for years 2009
and 2010. While this table only shows
general fund dollars, the inclusion of
other dedicated funds by program unit
shows similar results. As noted earlier,
maintenance of effort is based solely on
recurring program expenditures. The
decline in recurring air program costs of
just under 10% is less than the overall
IDEQ budget decline of about 16.5% as
well as the other individual program
units of administration, water and
waste. Only the smaller Coeur D’Alene
Basin Commission showed any increase.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Based on this information, a comparison
of air program funding levels to other
IDEQ programs shows that the air
program was not singled out for a
disproportionate or selective reduction.
Table 2 compares both IDEQ and IDEQ
Air program funding levels to the
balance of other state agencies and
programs. With only a few exceptions,
the change in the IDEQ air program
general funding level is consistent with
changes in the budgets other state
agencies and programs from 2009 to
2010. Comparison with all state
agencies’ aggregate budgets—totals that
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
also include dedicated sources of funds,
i.e., inclusion of revenue streams or
sources that may not be subject to direct
executive branch control—shows a more
variable picture. EPA considered the
relative size of the agencies and their
budgets, their mission (e.g., public
safety, health, education) and their
sources of funding. Based upon these
considerations, EPA concluded that
neither the air program nor IDEQ overall
was singled out for a disproportionate or
selective reduction when compared to
all the other executive agencies from
2009 to 2010.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Notices
Tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Accordingly, consistent with criteria
set forth in CAA § 105(c)(2) and
consistent with the Agency’s September
30, 2011 Guidance on qualifying for a
non-selective reduction, EPA has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
determined that it is appropriate to
approve IDEQ’s request for a non
selective reduction in its level of
recurring expenditures for the 2010
grant year for its air program grant. The
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20627
revised MOE level for 2010 and 2011
grant years is $3,389,800.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Notices
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
EN05AP12.000
Tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20628
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Notices
This notice constitutes a request for
public comment and an opportunity for
public hearing as required by the Clean
Air Act. All written comments received
by May 7, 2012 on this proposal will be
considered. EPA will conduct a public
hearing on this proposal only if a
written request for such is received by
EPA at the address above by May 7,
2012. If no written request for a hearing
is received, EPA will proceed to the
final determination. While notice of the
final determination will not be
published in the Federal Register,
copies of the determination can be
obtained by sending a written request to
Michael McGown at the above address.
Dated: March 22, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012–8200 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Information Collection Being
Submitted for Review and Approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork burden and as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502–
3520), the Federal Communications
Commission invites the general public
and other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection(s).
Comments are requested concerning:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (e) ways to
further reduce the information
collection burden on small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
Tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
a collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
does not display a valid OMB control
number.
Written Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) comments should be
submitted on or before May 7, 2012. If
you anticipate that you will be
submitting PRA comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the FCC contact listed below as
soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Submit your PRA comments
to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), via fax
at 202–395–5167 or via Internet at
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and
to Judith B. Herman, Federal
Communications Commission, via the
Internet at Judith-b.herman@fcc.gov. To
submit your PRA comments by email
send them to: PRA@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing
Director, FCC, at 202–418–0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060–1147.
Title: Wireless E911 Phase II Location
Accuracy Requirements, Third Report
and Order, FCC 11–107.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Individuals and
households; business or other for-profit
entities; Not-for-profit institutions and
State, Local, or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 4,898
respondents; 9,514 responses.
Estimated Time per Response:
5.5867143 hours (average).
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement and third party
disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
Statutory authority for this information
collection is contained in 47 U.S.C.
Sections 151, 154 and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
Total Annual Burden: 53,152 hours.
Total Annual Cost: N/A.
Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
No questions of a confidential nature are
asked.
Needs and Uses: The Commission
obtained OMB approval for this new
collection in March 2011. The
Commission is now seeking OMB
approval for another revision to this
information collection. The Commission
will submit this information collection
to the OMB after publication of this 30
day notice.
The Commission adopted and
released a Third Report and Order, FCC
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20629
11–107, PS Docket No. 07–114, which
provides that new Commercial Mobile
Radio Service (CMRS) providers,
meeting the definition of covered CMRS
providers in Section 20.18 and
deploying networks subsequent to the
effective date of the Third Report and
Order that are not an expansion or
upgrade of an existing CMRS network,
must meet the handset-based location
accuracy standard from the start.
Consequently, the rule requires new
CMRS providers launching new standalone networks during the eight-year
implementation period for handsetbased CMRS wireless licensees to meet
the applicable handset-based location
accuracy standard in effect of the time
of deployment. Therefore, new rule
section 20.18(h)(2)(iv) specifies that new
CMRS providers must comply with
paragraphs (h)(2)((i–iii) of Section 20.18,
which are the location accuracy
requirements for handset-based carriers.
OMB approved the information
collection for those rule paragraphs,
which the Second Report and Order
adopted, on March 30, 2011, under
OMB Control No. 3060–1147. The
Commission announced OMB’s
approval and the effective date in 76 FR
23713 of the Federal Register.
As a result, under the new rule
section adopted by Third Report and
Order, all new CMRS providers, in
delivering emergency calls for Enhanced
911 service, must satisfy the handsetbased location accuracy standard at
either a county-based or Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP)-based
geographic level. Similarly, in
accordance with the new rule and under
the paragraph provision of Section
20.18(h)(2)(ii), new CMRS providers
may exclude up to 15 percent of the
counties or PSAP areas they serve due
to heavy forestation that limits handsetbased technology accuracy in those
counties or areas.
Therefore, new CMRS providers will
be required to file a list of the specific
counties where they are utilizing their
respective exclusions. In its September
2010 Second Report and Order, 75 FR
70604, the Commission found that
permitting this exclusion properly but
narrowly accounts for the known
technical limitations of handset-based
location accuracy technologies, while
ensuring that the public safety
community and the public at large are
sufficiently informed of these
limitations.
When they have begun deploying
their new networks, the new CMRS
providers must submit initial reports, as
the Commission will announce after
OMB approval of this revised
information collection, with a list of the
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20625-20629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0211; FRL-9655-5]
Air Pollution Control: Proposed Action on Clean Air Act Grants to
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Proposed Determination
With Request for Comments; and a Notice of Opportunity for a Public
Hearing
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; Proposed determination with request for comments; and a
notice of opportunity for a public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA has made a proposed determination that reduction
in expenditures of non-Federal funds for the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in support of its continuing air program
under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 105 for the period of calendar year
2010 was not selective relative to the expenditures of all other
executive branch agencies in the State for the same period. This
determination, when final, will reset IDEQ's required recipient
maintenance of effort level for 2010 and 2011, retain its federal award
for the 2010 and 2011 grant years, and allow IDEQ to remain eligible
for a Sec. 105 grant for 2012 and beyond.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received
by EPA at the address stated below by May 7, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0211, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov, Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Email: McGown.Michael@epa.gov
Mail: Michael McGown, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1435 North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael McGown, Region 10, Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706, phone: (208)-
378-5764, fax: (208)-378-5744, or email address at
mcgown.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible
state, local and tribal agencies. Section 105 contains two cost-sharing
provisions to initially qualify for a Sec. 105 grant under Sec.
105(a)(1)(A). An eligible entity must meet a minimum match and to
remain eligible for Section 105 grant funds, an eligible entity must
continue to meet the match as well as meet a maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement under Sec. 105(c)(1). The match requires that at
least \2/5\ of the total costs for approved Sec. 105 program
activities must be paid by the state/local recipient. Program
activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring and non-
recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses.
The MOE provision requires that a state or local agency spend at
least the same dollar level of funds as it did in the previous grant
year but only for the costs of recurring activities. Specifically,
Sec. 105(c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1)], provides that ``no agency shall
receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its
expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air
pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were for
such programs during the preceding fiscal year. Pursuant to CAA Sec.
105(c)(2), however, EPA may still award a grant to an agency not
meeting the requirements of Sec. 105(c)(1), ``if the Administrator,
after notice and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a
reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction
in the expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of
the applicable unit of Government.'' These statutory requirements are
repeated in EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140 through
35.148.
EPA issued additional guidance to recipients on what constitutes a
nonselective reduction on September 30, 2011. In consideration of
legislative history, the guidance clarified that a non-selective
reduction does not necessarily mean that each Executive branch agency
need be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be clear to EPA,
from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-related air program
is not being disproportionately impacted or singled out for a
reduction.
A Sec. 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report
no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents
all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed
period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable
EPA to make a determination that a non-selective reduction has
occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must
provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts
on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient
agency itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should
identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be
excepted from
[[Page 20626]]
comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that
the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being
disproportionately reduced. Documentation in two key areas will be
needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program and
comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency
containing the air program and the other executive branch agencies. EPA
may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on
the its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA
obligations and requirements.
In the case of IDEQ, EPA provides annual grant funding under the
authority CAA Sec. 105 to help IDEQ support the operation of its CAA-
related continuing air pollution control program. IDEQ's Sec. 105
annual grant period is based on the calendar year and as such is always
impacted by two State budget years since the annual Idaho state budget
cycle runs from July 1 of the current through June 30 of the following
year. For the 2010 grant year EPA awarded the IDEQ $1,497,516 in Sec.
105 funds. This represented 27.8% of the total approved program funding
based on IDEQ's stated prospective contribution of $3,891,016 in its
own non-federal funds to cover the costs of both non-recurring and
recurring activities. The State's portion of the total recurring costs
was to have been at least $3,842,589. This was the State's final level
of recurrent expenditures for the 2009 grant year and constituted the
required MOE level for the 2010 grant year.
However, on March 8, 2011, IDEQ informed EPA in writing that due to
continued reductions in the State's overall budget for executive branch
agencies, particularly in the State's SFY2011 budget (which funded the
last 6 months of the calendar year 2010 grant), IDEQ would fall short
of its required MOE level by $452,789. The resulting contribution of
$3,389,800 would be 11.78% below the required level. EPA examined the
IDEQ's request and confirmed that its 2010 final financial status
report indicated a State contribution level of $3,389,800 of recurrent
expenditures.
In its March 8, 2011 letter to EPA, IDEQ requested an adjustment of
its 2010 MOE level based upon a non-selective reduction. IDEQ also
sought to retain its 2011 Sec. 105 award based on this lowered
recipient contribution level. In support of its request IDEQ provided
legislative appropriations information on State general fund levels by
major departmental categories for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 budget years.
In June, July and October of 2011, EPA requested additional clarifying
information from IDEQ on the full range of state-only executive branch,
IDEQ and air program appropriations and expenses for the 2010 grant
period. IDEQ supplied additional information to EPA on July 21, July
25, October 17, October 27, and November 15th that further
distinguished general fund, dedicated fund and federal stimulus
resources. On November 28 and November 30, 2011 IDEQ further clarified
its direct and indirect air program expenditures compared to changes in
overall IDEQ environmental program expenditure levels, overall State
general fund levels and overall State appropriations levels for the
affected period. A summary of this information is shown in the tables
below.
Table 1--IDEQ General Fund Changes From SFY 2009 Through SFY 2010
[Final amounts in $s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEQ budget unit 2009 2010 Difference % Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration (Recurring Appropriation)*....... 3,115,800 2,823,700 -292,000 -9.37
Administration (One Time Appropriation)*........ 47,700 0 -47,700 -100.00
Air Program (Recurring Appropriation)........... 3,075,700 2,769,200 -306,500 -9.97
Air Program (One Time Appropriation)............ 1,023,700 32,000 -991,700 -96.87
Water Program (Recurring Appropriation)......... 7,847,700 6,012,700 -1,835000 -23.38
Water Program (One Time Appropriation).......... 36,000 120,000 84,000 233.33
Waste Program (Recurring Appropriation)......... 2,769,200 2,450,500 -318,700 -11.51
Waste Program (One Time Appropriation).......... 0 0 0 n/a
INL Oversight Program........................... 164,500 103,400 -61,100 -37.14
Coeur D'Alene Basin Commission.................. 98,400 104,300 5,900 6.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total: Recurring Appropriation.............. 17.071,300 14,263,800 -2,807,500 -16.45
Total: One Time Appropriation............... 1,107,400 152,000 -955,400 -86.27
Total: IDEQ................................. 18,178,700 14,415,800 -3,762,900 -20.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Table reflects comparison of general funds only. Dedicated state funds (e.g., non-Title V permit fees)
are not included. Administration costs also need to be attributed to the various other program units. Addition
of these funds would bring state recurring air totals for 2009 and 2010 to $3,842,589 and $3,389,800,
respectively. Federal funds including ARRA funds are not included.
Table 1 compares overall IDEQ general funds expenses for years 2009
and 2010. While this table only shows general fund dollars, the
inclusion of other dedicated funds by program unit shows similar
results. As noted earlier, maintenance of effort is based solely on
recurring program expenditures. The decline in recurring air program
costs of just under 10% is less than the overall IDEQ budget decline of
about 16.5% as well as the other individual program units of
administration, water and waste. Only the smaller Coeur D'Alene Basin
Commission showed any increase. Based on this information, a comparison
of air program funding levels to other IDEQ programs shows that the air
program was not singled out for a disproportionate or selective
reduction. Table 2 compares both IDEQ and IDEQ Air program funding
levels to the balance of other state agencies and programs. With only a
few exceptions, the change in the IDEQ air program general funding
level is consistent with changes in the budgets other state agencies
and programs from 2009 to 2010. Comparison with all state agencies'
aggregate budgets--totals that also include dedicated sources of funds,
i.e., inclusion of revenue streams or sources that may not be subject
to direct executive branch control--shows a more variable picture. EPA
considered the relative size of the agencies and their budgets, their
mission (e.g., public safety, health, education) and their sources of
funding. Based upon these considerations, EPA concluded that neither
the air program nor IDEQ overall was singled out for a disproportionate
or selective reduction when compared to all the other executive
agencies from 2009 to 2010.
[[Page 20627]]
Accordingly, consistent with criteria set forth in CAA Sec.
105(c)(2) and consistent with the Agency's September 30, 2011 Guidance
on qualifying for a non-selective reduction, EPA has determined that it
is appropriate to approve IDEQ's request for a non selective reduction
in its level of recurring expenditures for the 2010 grant year for its
air program grant. The revised MOE level for 2010 and 2011 grant years
is $3,389,800.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 20628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP12.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 20629]]
This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an
opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All
written comments received by May 7, 2012 on this proposal will be
considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if
a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by
May 7, 2012. If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA will
proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final
determination will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of
the determination can be obtained by sending a written request to
Michael McGown at the above address.
Dated: March 22, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-8200 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P