MEMORANDUM

DATE:		4/23/15

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	4/23/15 Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants with Professor Richard L. Revesz and Denise Grab --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On April 23, 2015, Joe Goffman (OAR), Lorie Schmidt, Elliott Zenick, Aileen Roder, and I (all from OGC)  met with Prof. Richard L. Revesz and Denise Grab of The Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law, to discuss legal issues concerning the Clean Power Plan proposal for existing power plants.


[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 49918]
[DOCID:fr16au10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Baseline Filings

August 6, 2010.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P...........  Docket No. PR10-71-000.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company..............  Docket No. PR10-72-000.
Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC..............  Docket No. PR10-74-000.
Northwest Natural Gas Company.................  Docket No. PR10-75-000.
Enterprise Intrastate L.P.....................  Docket No. PR10-76-000 (Not Consolidated).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on July 29, 2010, July 30, 2010, and August 3,
2010, respectively the applicants listed above submitted their baseline
filing of its Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided
under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, August 16, 2010.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20132 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 110)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32237-32238]
[DOCID:fr06jn08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0429]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation: New River (South Fork), Fort
Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Davie Boulevard (SW Twelfth Street) Bridge, New River (South Fork),
mile 0.9, at Fort Lauderdale, FL. The deviation is necessary to provide
for the safety of workers in conducting maintenance on the bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain closed during limited hours of
the day.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on June 1, 2008 through
6 p.m. June 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in the preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0429 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room
432, Miami, FL 33131-3028, between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Bridge Branch,
Seventh Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The consultant Reynolds, Smith & Hills CS,
Inc. representing Florida Department of Transportation, the bridge
owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the regulations
governing the operations of the Davie Boulevard (SW Twelfth Street)
Bridge, New River (South Fork), mile 0.9, at Fort Lauderdale, FL, to
conduct minor repairs and painting. This bridge has a vertical
clearance of 21 feet in the closed position at mean high water. The
operating schedule for this bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.351(a)
and requires the bridge to open on signal, except that from 7:30 a.m.
to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays the bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation.
This deviation will allow the bridge to be closed to navigation from 7
a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday;
effective on June 1, 2008 and running through June 30, 2008. This
deviation will allow a horizontal clearance reduction to 25 feet
between the maintenance barge that will be used as a working platform
and the bridge fender system from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through
Friday. The U.S. Coast Guard, Florida Department of Transportation and
the Marine Industries Association of South Florida have determined that
these dates and times should have the least impact on navigation.
Vessels requiring less than 21 feet of vertical clearance and less than
25 feet of horizontal clearance shall be passed at any time. There is
no alternate route for vessels in this location. The contractor has
assured the Coast Guard that they can open the bridge within 15 minutes
in the event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 29, 2008.
Robert S. Branham,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-12800 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

And

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

And

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

Under 14 C.F.R. Part 212 for blanket statements of authorization to engage in codeshare services	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)	     Docket OST-99-6501

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARE SERVICE

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Andrea Fischer Newman

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs

David G. Mishkin

Vice President, International &

   Regulatory Affairs

Megan Rae Rosia

Managing Director, Government Affairs & Associate General Counsel

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

901 15th Street, N.W.

Suite 310

Washington, D.C.  20005

(202) 842-3193	Richard D. Mathias

ZUCKERT, SCOTT &

   RASENBERGER, L.L.P.

888 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20006

(202) 298-8660

Attorneys for

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

	Dated:  May 7, 2001

	BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

And

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

And

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

Under 14 C.F.R. Part 212 for blanket statements of authorization to engage in codeshare services	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)	     Docket OST-99-6501

Dated:  May 7, 2001

	NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARE SERVICE

Pursuant to conditions (b) and (f) of the Department’s Action dated January 5, 2000 in this docket, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) and Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A. (“Alitalia”) hereby provide notice that Alitalia intends to display the two letter “NW” designator code of Northwest on flights operated by Alitalia for the purpose of carriage of mail in the following markets:  (1) Newark-Milan, Italy; (2) Milan-Naples, Italy; (3) Milan-Catania, Italy.   The parties intend to implement codesharing in the referenced markets within 30 days.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Megan Rae Rosia /s/

Megan Rae Rosia

Managing Director, Government Affairs & Associate General Counsel

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

901 15th Street, N.W.

Suite 310

Washington, D.C.  20005

(202) 842-3193

							  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Richard D. Mathias

ZUCKERT, SCOTT &

   RASENBERGER, L.L.P.

888 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20006

(202) 298-8660

Attorneys for ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	I hereby certify that on this 7th day of  May 2001, a copy of the foregoing Application of Northwest Airlines, Inc. was served on the following:

Nathaniel P. Breed, Jr.

Counsel for Federal Express

Shaw, Pittman

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Jeffrey A. Manley

Counsel for United Air Lines

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

2445 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Robert E. Cohn

Counsel for Delta Air Lines

Shaw, Pittman

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Tom Lydon

Director of Government Affairs

Evergreen International Aviation, Inc.

1629 K Street, N.W.

Suite 301

Washington, D.C.  20006

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Carl B. Nelson, Jr.

Associate General Counsel

American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20036

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Julie S. Sande

Manager, Contracts and

   Regulatory Affairs

World Airways, Inc.

HLH Building

101 World Drive

Peachtree City, GA 30269

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Jed T. Orme

Senior Vice President and

   General Counsel

DHL Airways, Inc.

50 California Street

Suite 500

San Francisco, CA  94111-4624

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Nicholas A. Sabatini

Director

Flight Standards Service

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Room 821

Washington, D.C.  20591

(BY MAIL)

Donald T. Bliss

Counsel for US Airways

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Suite 500 West

Washington, D.C.  20004

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

Paul V. Mifsud

Vice President, Government and

  Legal Affairs-United States

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

2501 M Street, N.W.

Suite 612

Washington, D.C.  20037

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> (BY E-MAIL)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USTRANSCOM/TCJ5-AA

Attn:  Air Mobility Analysis

508 Scott Drive

Scott AFB, IL  62225-5357

(BY MAIL)

John R. Byerly

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Room 5830

Washington, D.C.  20520

(BY MAIL)

/s/Fawn A. Severino/s/

Fawn A. Severino

(continued…)

Notice of Additional Codeshare Services

Page   PAGE  2

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   2


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 	February 21, 2013

SUBJECT:	Unit Cost Estimates of Residential Wood Heating Appliances

FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.
      Beth Friedman, EC/R Inc.

TO:		Gil Wood, EPA/OAQPS
		David Cole, EPA/OAQPS

	The purpose of this memorandum is to present an estimate of the unit costs of residential wood heating appliances under both the proposed NSPS ("Proposal") and an alternative approach being considered ("Alternative").  We will present the major variables and assumptions underlying the analysis.  Major variables include the estimated number of units shipped per year, the costs to develop new models, baseline costs of models, and the schedule for implementing the revised New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under both the Proposal and Alternative.  Note that the majority of cost and shipment data used in this analysis was provided by industry sources.

   I. Estimated Annual Shipped Units
	We used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report on 2008 shipments by product category, and F&S revenue forecasts which incorporated the weak economy in years 2009 and 2010, to calculate the reduced number of shipments in years 2009 and 2010.  Forced air furnaces were outside the scope of the F&S report.  Instead, we used manufacturer estimates of total industry sales in 2008 and applied the F&S market factors to estimate shipments through 2010.  The F&S wood stove numbers included both certified and non-certified (single burn rate) stoves, so we have estimated numbers of non-certified stove shipments included in the total reported wood stove category (i.e., 40,000 units shipped in 2008).[2]  These shipments were then deleted from the adjusted total wood stove category shipments.  We expanded the 2008 single burn rate estimate using the F&S factors.  For years 2011 through 2038 (for the Proposal) and 2011 through 2041 (for the Alternative) estimated shipments are based on a forecasted revenue growth rate of 2.0%, in keeping with the average annual growth in real GDP predicted by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.  There is not a perfect correlation between shipments and revenue (for example, because of their higher unit cost, pellet stoves generate more absolute revenue than wood stoves), but we think the overall trend in the projection is reasonable in the absence of specific shipment projections. See Table 1, below for a truncated summary of the shipment data through 2023 for all appliances except masonry heaters (i.e., for proposed Subparts AAA and QQQQ).
	Masonry heaters manufacturing cost impacts vary by the type of producer and the type of certification method.  According to one manufacturer, the masonry heater industry in the U.S. is dominated by the Finnish firm Tulikivi, which manufactures and imports about half of the U.S. masonry heater units installed yearly through its network of installing distributors.  The same manufacturer said that the second largest producer is a Canadian firm, Temp-Cast.  The remainder of the industry is "dozens" of small producers, with probably fewer than 100 (or at least fewer than 200) generating any masonry revenue at all.  Some commercial operations sell core units and/or design kits based on their own design, and other sell units they license from other U.S. or foreign companies.  Finally, some units are custom built.  Based on this information, we assumed that 50 percent of masonry heaters sold per year in the U.S. are Tulikivi models and 35 percent are sold by other manufacturers.  The remaining 15 percent of units are sold by independent contractors.

      Using the assumptions described above, we subcategorized the masonry heater segment into three groups:  50 percent of stoves are sold by the largest manufacturer, Tulikivi, 35 percent of stoves are sold by other large manufacturers, and 15 percent of stoves are custom built models sold by small manufacturers.  See Table 2, below for a truncated summary of the masonry heater shipment data through 2023 (i.e, for proposed Subpart RRRR).

Table 1.  Estimated Annual Shipped Units  -  Subparts AAA & QQQQ

Table 2.  Estimated Annual Shipped Units  -  Subpart RRRR, Masonry Heater

   II. Cost Model Variables

      A. 	Model Development Costs
	We have heard various estimates of the costs to bring a wood heater from concept to completion, from $300,000 for a single model to $1,360,000 for a 4-firebox model line.  A Hearth and Home article estimated the total cost to bring a model from conception to market as $645,000 to $750,000 for steel stoves and over $1 million for cast-iron, enameled wood stoves.  The authors indicated that costs would decrease for separate models in the same line by up to 25%.  Based on this information, we estimate that a 4-model steel line would cost up to $328,125 per model to develop.  These costs include marketing, design, developing first generation, second generation and prototype units; NSPS and safety testing, equipment tooling, etc.  The manufacturer supplying these figures for the article estimated that the NSPS and safety testing component of these costs would constitute $40,000 per model.

	Two other manufacturers also provided estimated development costs for a 4-box model line, which are summarized in Table 3.

      Another manufacturer estimated costs of new product development, including design, prototype development, testing, tooling equipment and other manufacturing changes, marketing support, materials, training, and education to be in excess of $300,000 over an 8- to 12-month schedule for a relatively uncomplicated product.  Costs will increase for products that have more sophisticated controls.  One other manufacturer estimated that their typical model development costs are around $200,000/model.

	Based on this information, we estimated average costs to develop a new model line, including testing with both crib and cord wood, of $356,250 for certified wood stoves and pellet stoves, as outlined in Table 3.  We also assumed $356,250 for single burn rate stoves, which may be somewhat high if they are as clean as the manufacturers claim.  We likewise assumed a development cost of $356,250 for forced air furnaces and hydronic heaters.

      According to information provided by one masonry heater manufacturer, R&D costs for a masonry heater may be estimated at $250,000.  For our cost analysis, we assumed R&D costs were the same as for other wood heater appliances ($356,250).  For facilities conducting R&D, these costs include the costs for certification testing.  We estimate that the cost of testing a heater design in an EPA accredited lab to be approximately $10,000 for masonry heaters.

Table 3.  Example of Manufacturers' Estimates of Costs to Develop Model Line (4 Fireboxes)

                                Cost Component
                                Estimated Costs
                                     Notes
Salaries
$850,000
Using 2-full time experienced employees to bring the products to market, salaries and benefits are estimated at $160,000 per year for at least 5.3 years. Tasks include design, prototyping, testing, production-line integration, and marketing.
Laboratory Equipment
$50,000
In order to accelerate R&D and avoid validating each result with independent testing labs (too costly for most manufacturers), new testing equipment will need to be purchased in order to sample flue gases, measure test load weight loss, record data automatically, and analyze flue gas composition.
Prototypes
$25,000
Numerous prototypes will be needed until the final product can be approved. For each firebox, an estimated 8 prototypes will be needed, at a cost of $700 each. Numerous samples of various components will also have to be purchased from vendors.
Test Fuel*
$45,000*
Each test costs at least $50 in fuel (assuming cribs are used), including waste.  And estimated 150 tests will have to be conducted for each firebox for a total of $7,500, or $30,000 for a 4-firebox model line based on crib testing.*
Testing Services*
$150,000*
Testing services for emissions, efficiency, and safety are estimated to last approximately 3 weeks for each firebox. At an average of $1,500 per day plus travel expenses, this amounts to approximately $25,000 for each firebox, or $100,000 for a 4-firebox model line based on crib testing.*
Outside Consultants
$160,000
The average manufacturer will need outside help for design and testing. Testing equipment, knowledge of the test standard, and general guidance is normally offered by outside consultants (not necessarily certified EPA test labs). The average manufacturer will need approximately 300 hours of consulting services per year ($40,000) for 4 years.
Re-tooling
$120,000
For each firebox, new molds and jigs will need to be purchased or produced. Re-tooling charges will reach an estimated $30,000 per firebox, or $120,000 for a 4-firebox model line.
Marketing
$25,000
New pictures will need to be taken and all the current marketing material, including web sites and owner's manuals, will have to be updated.
Total
$1,425,000
Equal to $356,250/model
*Note: The costs originally provided by industry for this table were presumed to be based on crib wood testing, not both crib wood and cord wood testing. Therefore we increased the industry-based "Test Fuel" cost by 50% (to the $45,000 shown above) as well as the industry-based "Testing Services" cost by 50% (to the $150,000 shown above) in order to estimate the additional cost to test with both crib wood and cord wood.

      The masonry heater cost analysis also makes use of a unique software package based on a European masonry heater design standard.  This standard has been verified in the laboratory and under field conditions to produce masonry heaters that would meet the proposed NSPS emission limits.  The software produces for printout a certification for a given design application and the design definition documents, as well as operating instructions customized to the given design.  Thus the software verification and certification record is created for and attached to the design, and the resulting documents can be submitted as part of the certification application.  The cost of this software to the user is approximately 1,000 Euros (approximately $1,500) for the package with a 300 Euro (approximately $450) annual fee that commences in the second year following purchase.

      We assumed that the large manufacturers will use the 6-year period starting at proposal of the draft standards, i.e., 2013 to 2018, to recover the costs of R&D.  The emission testing and software certification costs will be incurred on a real-time basis, as they occur.  We also assume that the small manufacturers will purchase the software package in the year the final rule is promulgated (2014) and continue to renew their license in the following years, in anticipation of the 2019 small manufacturer compliance date.

      B. 	Number of Models

	We need to reconcile the data on shipments of individual units with the certification costs associated with model lines.  Therefore, we estimated the average number of models produced by manufacturers of each product type.  For certified wood stoves and fireplace inserts, we used information provided by the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) that currently 125 models are being produced on EPA's list of certified stoves.  Because pellet stoves are produced at levels comparable to wood stoves, we estimated that there are up to 125 models being currently produced.

	The single burn rate estimate of 20 different models is based on an internet search of major manufacturers (United States Stove and Vogelzang).  The actual estimate could be higher if there are a large number of importers of foreign produced units.  However, a search of the Northern Tool and Equipment, Tractor Supply Company, Lowes, Home Depot and Walmart Websites did not identify any other major producers of single burn rate stoves that are sold in the U.S.

	The HPBA provided a list of manufacturers by product type.  Using this as a starting point, we conducted additional internet searches to quantify the numbers of models offered by manufacturer.  We further refined the estimate of hydronic heater models based on EPA's experience with the voluntary program.  We understand that a number of manufacturers list products on their website that are no longer manufactured, only sold in limited quantities, and/or are sold under license to another manufacturer.  Furthermore, one manufacturer dominates industry sales, so on a sales-weighted basis there are fewer numbers of models produced than a strict interpretation of web sites would indicate.  Based on this process, we estimate the following number of models by product type:

      * Forced air furnaces  -   50
      * Hydronic heating systems (outdoor and indoor)  -  120

For masonry heaters, there are three scenarios for potential cost impacts.  In the case of Tulikivi and some U.S. firms, e.g., Timely Construction, these companies have already invested in R&D in order to gain access to U.S. markets which restrict sales (e.g., Colorado) of uncertified units.  These companies will face testing costs only, with an assumed total of nine tests conducted (i.e., a total of nine models certified through testing). We assume that these costs will be spread out over 50 percent of the Tulikivi models and 50 percent of the "other manufacturer" models.  For purposes of our cost analysis, we also assumed that two additional companies will conduct R&D to develop two new models each to meet the proposed NSPS.  These costs will be spread over 50 percent of the "other manufacturer" models.  Finally, we have been told that Tulikivi will use a software certification approach to certify up to eight additional models, which will be spread out over the remaining 50 percent of Tulikivi models.

We also project that the remaining 15 percent of custom built units will use the software certification approach to demonstrate they comply with the proposed NSPS.  Our estimate of the number of custom built models is based on the average number of models sold per year in the 15 percent model category (i.e., 85 per year). We assumed each custom manufacturer would sell 2 models per year, for a total of 42 manufacturers participating in the software certification option.

      C. 	Model Design Lifespan

We assume a 20-year model design lifespan as well as a 20-year use/emitting appliance lifespan.  These assumptions were made to best characterize the actual model design and use lifespans given that many models developed for the 1988 NSPS are still being sold (after 25 years), many "new" models still have the same internal working parts with merely exterior cosmetic changes, and most stoves in consumer homes emit for at least 20 years and often much longer.  Therefore our analysis tracks shipments and costs through year 2038 for the Proposal and through year 2041 for the Alternative (i.e., assuming a 20 year design life for a model meeting the standard in 2019 under the Proposal, and in 2022 under the Alternative approach, as described in more detail in Section IV).
      D. 	Certification Testing
	The costs of certification testing are included in the model development (R&D) costs.  Models that already meet the specified limit will merely need to certify emissions and thus face certification costs only (e.g., pellet stoves facing the 2014 NSPS limit, described in Section IV).  However, for purposes of unit cost increase, the majority of costs are faced by models that require new R&D and increased costs to manufacture, and these costs are modeled in this memorandum for all appliances that need to do more than merely certify to meet an NSPS year limit.

      E. 	Additional Manufacturing Costs

	We estimated the following additional manufacturing costs per unit based on appliance type:

      * Certified wood stoves and pellet stoves represent a well-developed technology and we could not identify price differences between models with lower emission levels compared to models with higher emission levels.  Therefore, we have assumed no additional manufacturing costs.
      * One manufacturer estimated that it will cost an average of $100 more to manufacture a lower emitting single burn rate product (exclusive of recovering R&D cost).
      * We have limited information that indicates the cost to produce a forced-air furnace that complies with a Step 1 emission standard (see discussion below in section IV) is approximately 75% more, or $1,600 (exclusive of recovering R&D cost).
      * We have seen a range of estimates for additional costs to manufacture a hydronic heater capable of meeting the emission standards associated with the EPA voluntary program, with an average being approximately $3,000.  We assume that the additional costs to manufacture an NSPS certified furnace will be comparable, i.e., $3,000 (exclusive of recovering R&D cost).

   III. Unit Costs of Certified Wood Heaters

	We used the average 2008 base year costs per appliance type, based on F&S where available, and converted these 2008 costs to 2010 dollars ($) to be consistent with the 2010 R&D costs estimated in Table 3. These costs represent the costs based on manufacturer's price (NOT retail).  For units not included in the F&S report (single burn rate stoves and forced air furnaces), we used manufacturer information.,   Our next step was to develop the following incremental Cost Formula:

(Cost of R&D * Number of models) / (Number of shipments * model life of 20 years),

which equals the incremental cost of developing a new unit, spread over the number of units expected to be sold during the model life (assuming a flat growth rate of shipments for the purposes of estimating "Number of Shipments" in this formula).  Where there are additional manufacturing costs as discussed above, we added these to the unit cost number.  The total incremental cost was added to the base model cost to derive the post-NSPS unit cost.

Table 4a is a summary of the final unit cost estimates under the Proposal, and Table 4b is a summary of the final unit cost estimates under the Alternative, as reflected by a draft NSPS phase-in schedule, described in section IV.

Table 5 is a summary of the masonry heater unit costs, by type of manufacturer and certification assumption.  (For masonry heaters the Proposal and Alternative do not differ.) Because of the significantly lower cost of emission testing and/or software certification, we did not incorporate a cost recovery period into the equation for these unit price estimates for large manufacturers (like Tulikivi) using software certification.

We can see from the results that the overall low number of additional R&D masonry heater models, the relatively modest cost of the software certification option and the low number of models requiring additional testing result in incremental costs ranging from $88 to $840 for masonry heaters.  The average cost increase per masonry heater unit is approximately $300.

Table 4a.  Unit Costs of Wood Heaters meeting Proposed NSPS (2010$)

Table 4b.  Unit Costs of Wood Heaters meeting Alternative Standards (2010$)

Table 5. Unit Costs of Masonry Heaters meeting Proposed NSPS or Alternative Standards (2010$)

   IV. NSPS Options
      We developed two primary options to evaluate the cost impacts of implementing new or revised NSPS standards for the residential wood heating appliance industry.  The cost analyses assume specified phase-in schedules, which differ for the Proposal versus the Alternative.  The Proposal represents a scenario where all types of appliances (except masonry heaters) would be required to meet a specified Step 1 emission limit upon promulgation in 2014 and then a stricter Step 2 emission limit five years later in 2019. Under this Proposal, large manufacturers of masonry heaters would also be required to meet a specified Step 1 emission limit upon promulgation in 2014, while small custom manufacturers would not be required to meet this Step 1 emission limit until 2019.  There is no Step 2 emission limit for masonry heaters being proposed.  The Alternative approach represents a scenario where all types of appliances (except masonry heaters) would be required to meet a specified Step 1 emission limit upon promulgation in 2014 and then an interim Alternative Step 2 emission limit three years after promulgation in 2017, followed by a stricter Alternative Step 3 emission limit eight years after promulgation in 2022.  Masonry heaters would be regulated the same way under this Alternative approach as under the Proposal, as explained above.  Note that the Proposal Step 2 emission limit is the same as the Alternative Step 3 emission limit, but the compliance dates differ for this stricter limit (i.e., 2019 versus 2022).  Tables 4a, 4b, and 5 show the resulting unit cost impacts of implementing these options.  These implementation periods represent a tentative schedule and are subject to change.

      It is important to note that the costs represented in the NSPS blocks are for a unit required to make changes to comply with the NSPS.  In reality, not all units will require changes and the related R&D costs.

      Following is a summary of the NSPS implementation assumptions for each appliance type, grouped according to probable NSPS Subparts.  This summary describes the specific emission limits under the Proposal and the Alternative approach.  A discussion regarding the basis for these standards as well as how many existing models of each appliance type already meet the specified limits is provided in the "Estimated Emissions from Wood Heaters" memo.

Subpart AAA ("room heaters"):

      * Adjustable burn rate, single burn rate, and pellet stoves:  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 4.5 g/hr upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 1.3 g/hr five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 4.5 g/hr upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 2.5 g/hr three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 1.3 g/hr eight years after promulgation in 2022.
Subpart QQQQ ("central heaters"):

      * Hydronic heaters (both outdoor and indoor):  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU heat output three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output eight years after promulgation in 2022.

      * Forced Air Furnaces:  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 0.93 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 0.93 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU heat output three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output eight years after promulgation in 2022.
Subpart RRRR including masonry heaters:

      * Masonry Heaters:  Proposal / Alternative (same): Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014 for large manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing >= 15 masonry heaters per year), with a 5-year (2019) small volume manufacturer compliance extension (for companies constructing < 15 units/year).  No other phased-in limits are being proposed.

   V. Other Cost Information

      A. 	Installation Costs

	Although we do not expect any changes in installation costs, they are relevant to the total cost of purchasing a residential wood heating device.  Where possible we used information in the F&S report.  The F& S report notes that installation cost only includes the installation of the appliance and does not include the cost of installing a new chimney, the cost of a blower system or the cost of additional accessories such as mantel and other stone exteriors.  An average installation includes installing floor and wall protection, connecting pipes to the unit using the proper material and construction clearances, ensuring proper ventilation, and testing the unit to make sure it is operating properly.  For single burn rate stoves, we assumed that installation costs would be equal to installation of certified wood stoves.  For forced air furnaces, we assumed an installation cost of $2,500, based on manufacturer information.

      * Certified Wood Stoves:  $500
      * Single Burn Rate Stoves:  $500
      * Pellets Stoves:  $300
      * Forced Air Furnaces:  $2,500
      * Masonry Heaters:  $6,000
      * Hydronic Heating Systems (Indoor or Outdoor):  $2,000

      B. 	Price Markups

	As described above, the unit costs presented are the manufacturer's price, which is the price of one standard unit and does not include installation, shipping charges, or accessories.  As noted in the F&S report, pricing at the manufacturer's level is used to avoid the price fluctuations that occur once the unit enters the different distribution channels used in the market.  Once again, however, we also have an interest in being able to estimate the cost of a unit to the consumer.  We solicited information from manufacturers on average price markups.  Most of this information is confidential and varies by product type and price point.  However, the following information can be used as a rough guide:

Cost to Manufacture: 0.6
Producer Cost: 1
Direct Retail markup:  2
Major Retailer markup (e.g., Lowest): 1.5 (volume markup)
	We also looked at information in a related industry, residential gas furnaces and boilers, reviewed by the Department of Energy as it evaluated the impacts of implementing increased efficiency standards.  Following is a summary of mark-ups determined by that study.  The report concluded:

      The Department used the overall markup to estimate the customer price of baseline equipment, given the manufacturer cost of baseline equipment.  Similarly, the Department used the overall incremental markup to estimate changes in the customer price, given changes in the manufacturer cost above the baseline price resulting from a standard to raise equipment efficiency.  For example, if a standard increases the gas furnace manufacturer cost by $100, the Department multiplied this by the overall incremental markup of 2.05 to estimate that the customer price will increase $205.

     Table 6.  Summary of Markups on Residential Furnaces and Boilers[23]

                              Baseline Model Cost
                               Incremental Cost
Manufacturer
                                     1.26
                                     1.26
Wholesaler
                                     1.36
                                     1.11
Contractor (new/replacement)
                                   1.41/1.62
                                   1.22/1.33
Builder (new construction only)
                                     1.43
                                     1.33
Sales tax (replacements only)
                                     1.07
                                     1.07
Total markup (on manufacturing cost)
Non-weatherized gas furnace
                                     3.12
                                     2.07
Weatherized gas furnace
                                     3.12
                                     2.07
Oil-fired furnace
                                     2.97
                                     1.99
Hot-water gas boiler
                                     2.97
                                     1.99
Hot-water oil-fired boiler
                                     2.97
                                     1.99
Mobile home gas furnace
                                     2.22
                                     2.22


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17492-17494]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80379; File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Retroactively Apply
Recently-Revised Fee Schedule

April 5, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 30, 2017, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been primarily
prepared by LCH SA. LCH SA filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The proposed rule change will retroactively apply LCH SA's
recently-revised fee schedule \5\ from January 1, 2017 through February
17, 2017, the date that the revised schedule became effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Changes to the fee schedule included (1) a modification of
the annual fixed fee that covers all self-clearing activity for a
Clearing Member and its affiliates under the Unlimited Tariff, (2)
addition of an annual fixed fee for all General Members that
participate in the CDS Clearing Services under the Introductory
Tariff, and (3) removal of the volume-based discounts previously in
effect for the client clearing activities of the CDS Clearing
Service. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80114 (February
27, 2017), 82 FR 12481 (March 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to retroactively apply
LCH SA's recently-revised fee schedule beginning January 1, 2017.
    The purpose of the CDSClear fee grid revisions was to: (1) Modify
the annual fixed fee that covers all self-clearing activity for a
Clearing Member and its affiliates under the Unlimited Tariff, (2)
establish an annual fixed fee for all General Members that participate
in the CDS Clearing Services under the Introductory Tariff, and (3)
remove the volume-based discounts previously in effect for the client
clearing activities of the CDS Clearing Service.
    LCH SA was registered on December 29, 2016 but had long-standing
plans to revise the fee schedule with an intended effective date of
January 1, 2017.
    The need to apply the fees retroactively results from being granted
registration on December 29, 2016, only one (1) full business day prior
to the expected effective date on January 1, which, when coupled with
technological difficulties (including purchase of a digital
certificate) associated with the filing process, resulted in LCH SA not
being able to submit the filing on December 30, 2016, as LCH SA
initially anticipated.
    Because LCH SA had also intended the fee change to become effective
by January 1, 2017 it had already gone through the member consultation
process, meaning that members were aware of the pending change in fee
structure, including the proposed effective date of January 1, 2017.
    Additionally, LCH SA's national competent authorities had been
advised of the proposed fee change that had already gone through the
regulatory review process with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') in a manner that would have permitted the fee change to take
effect on January 1, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.cftc.gov/filings/orgrules/rule121516lchsadco001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that way, the proposed fee change was published on LCH SA's Web
site no later than December 14, 2016, when it was self-certified to the
CFTC pursuant to CFTC Rule 40.6.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA believes that the proposal is consistent with the provisions
of Section 17A of the Act, in general and in particular with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requiring the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH believes that applying the fees retroactively is reasonable.
The fees would have been applicable absent the year end Commission
registration as well as the technological difficulties LCH SA
encountered with the submission of the filing. The members of LCH SA
were consulted in advance and were fully aware that such fees were
intended to be applicable by January 1, 2017.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges.\8\ With respect to the Unlimited Tariff,
LCH SA has determined that the reduction in the Unlimited Tariff fixed
fee for General Members with respect to self-clearing activity on
behalf of the Clearing Member and its affiliates is reasonable and
appropriate given the costs and expenses to LCH SA. With CDSClear now
reaching a maturity stage in its development and the introduction of
mandatory clearing of OTC derivatives

in 2017, which will result in an increase in CDS client clearing
activities, it is appropriate that the costs and expenses that LCH SA
will incur in providing the CDS Clearing Service are shared more
broadly among General Members and their clients that participate in the
service. For the same reasons, LCH SA has determined that the cap on
self-clearing fees, inclusive of the annual fixed fee, applicable to
General Members electing the Introductory Tariff, should be lowered to
the same amount as the revised Unlimited Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the annual fixed fee for General Members under the
Introductory Tariff, LCH SA has determined that implementing an annual
fixed fee for all General Members that participate in the CDS Clearing
Service under the Introductory Tariff (which fee is separate from and
in addition to the self-clearing and client clearing variable fees
currently assessed), is reasonable and appropriate given the costs and
expenses to LCH SA in providing the services to General Members. The
fee assures that all General Members that benefit from the CDS Clearing
Service pay an appropriate fee for such services, such as being
consulted on potential rules, product and service changes, as well as
benefiting from unlimited support for product and system training and
testing, without regard to whether such General Members engage in CDS
clearing activities. The proposed rule changes, therefore, are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and
regulations thereunder applicable to it, because they provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees, dues, and other charges among
clearing members and market participants by ensuring that General
Members and their clients pay reasonable fees and dues for the services
that LCH SA provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the removal of volume-based discounts, LCH SA has
determined that removing the volume-based discounts for CDS client
clearing activities is reasonable and appropriate given the costs and
expenses to LCH SA in providing such services. The elimination of
volume-based discounts will assure that clients pay an appropriate
proportionate share of the costs and expenses that LCH SA will incur in
providing the CDS Clearing Service.

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA does not believe that the proposed retroactive application
of the fee changes from January 1, 2017 would impose any burden on
competition. LCH SA believes that the reduction in the annual Tariffs
assessed on General Members with respect to self-clearing activity are
reasonable and appropriate, as the Tariffs will apply equally to all
General Members that self-clear CDS under the Unlimited Tariff.
Additionally, LCH SA believes that an annual fixed fee for all General
Members that participate in the CDS Clearing Service under the
Introductory Tariff, which fee is separate from and in addition to the
self-clearing and client clearing variable fees currently assessed, is
appropriate in light of the expenses incurred by LCH SA in providing
its services. Further, LCH SA believes that removing the volume-based
discounts for CDS client clearing activities is reasonable and
appropriate, as the clearing fees will apply equally to all clients
that participate in the CDS Clearing Service.
    The retroactive application of the fee changes will apply to all
CDSClear members and will not adversely affect their ability to engage
in cleared transactions or to access clearing services.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the
Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay
so that the proposed rule change may become operative immediately upon
filing. According to LCH SA, the proposed retroactive application of
the recently-revised fee schedule does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest because LCH SA, its
members, and its other regulators all expected that the revised fee
schedule would apply starting on January 1, 2017.
    After careful consideration, the Commission agrees that a waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is appropriate under the particular facts
and circumstances concerning this proposed rule change. The only reason
LCH SA could not implement its revised fee schedule as planned was the
Commission's approval of its registration on December 29, 2016, which
did not leave LCH SA sufficient time to satisfy all of the technical
requirements to file proposed rule changes with the Commission.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the retroactive fee change will
have no impact on U.S. customers or members, further lessening any
investor protection or public interest concerns associated with the
retroactive application of a fee schedule to the date all parties
expected it would become effective. Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of LCH SA and on LCH
SA's Web site at http://www.lch.com/asset-classes/cdsclear. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-002 and
should be submitted on or before May 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07178 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11593]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3381-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

California; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of California (FEMA-3381-EM), dated February
14, 2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: February 14, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 14, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of California resulting from the potential failure of
the emergency spillway at Lake Oroville Dam beginning on February 7,
2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the State of California.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Butte, Sutter, and Yuba Counties for emergency protective
measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-03680 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 67382]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26989]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4153-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

North Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4153-DR), dated October
29, 2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 29, 2013, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Carolina resulting from severe storms, flooding,
landslides, and mudslides on July 27, 2013, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of North Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Ashe, Avery, Catawba, Lincoln, Watauga, and Wilkes Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of North Carolina are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-26989 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


conformity burden (EPA ICR No. 2130.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0561), and
this ICR will incorporate the efficiencies in today's final rule.
    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,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
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.
    An agency may not collect information, and a person is not required
to respond to an agency's request for information unless it has a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of rules subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
organizations and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation directly affects federal agencies and metropolitan planning
organizations that, by definition, are designated under federal
transportation laws only for metropolitan areas with a population of at
least 50,000. These organizations do not constitute small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule itself does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The primary purpose of this rule is to amend
the conformity rule to be consistent with Clean Air Act section 176(c)
as amended by SAFETEA-LU. The Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-
LU were intended to reduce the burden of demonstrating conformity in
designated nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to conformity
requirements. Thus, although this rule explains how to implement these
Clean Air Act amendments, it merely implements already established law
that imposes conformity requirements and does not itself impose
requirements that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in
any year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA and EPA has not prepared a statement
with respect to budgetary impacts.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This rule will not significantly or uniquely impact small
governments because it directly affects federal agencies and
metropolitan planning organizations that, by definition, are designated
under federal transportation laws only for metropolitan areas with a
population of at least 50,000. Additionally, this rule explains how to
implement Clean Air Act requirements, as such it merely implements
already established law that imposes conformity requirements and does
not itself impose requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the
national government and states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. The Clean Air Act requires conformity to
apply in certain nonattainment and maintenance areas as a matter of
law, and this rule merely establishes and revises procedures for
transportation planning entities in subject areas to follow in meeting
their existing statutory obligations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175: ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's amendments to the conformity rule do not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, as the
Clean Air Act requires transportation conformity to apply in any area
that is designated nonattainment or maintenance by EPA. This rule
amends the conformity rule to be consistent with Clean Air Act section
176(c) as amended by SAFETEA-LU. The Clean Air Act amendments made by
SAFETEA-LU affect nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to
conformity requirements. This rule does not have tribal implcations, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Action
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it will not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Further, we have determined that this rule is not likely to
have any significant adverse effects on energy supply.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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). This rule will be effective February 25, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Highways and roads,
Intergovernmental relations, Mass transportation, Nitrogen Dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 9, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 are
amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart T--[Amended]

0
2. An authority citation for subpart T of part 51 is added to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
3. Section 51.390 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  51.390  Implementation plan revision.

    (a) Purpose and applicability. The federal conformity rules under
part 93, subpart A, of this chapter, in addition to any existing
applicable state requirements, establish the conformity criteria and
procedures necessary to meet the requirements of Clean Air Act section
176(c) until such time as EPA approves the conformity implementation
plan revision required by this subpart. A state with an area subject to
this subpart and part 93, subpart A, of this chapter must submit to EPA
a revision to its implementation plan which contains criteria and
procedures for DOT, MPOs and other state or local agencies to assess
the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects,
consistent with this subpart and part 93, subpart A, of this chapter.
The federal conformity regulations contained in part 93, subpart A, of
this chapter would continue to apply for the portion of the
requirements that the state did not include in its conformity
implementation plan and the portion, if any, of the state's conformity
provisions that is not approved by EPA. In addition, any previously
applicable implementation plan conformity requirements remain
enforceable until the state submits a revision to its applicable
implementation plan to specifically remove them and that revision is
approved by EPA.
    (b) Conformity implementation plan content. To satisfy the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E), the implementation
plan revision required by this section must include the following three
requirements of part 93, subpart A, of this chapter: Sec. Sec.  93.105,
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c). A state may elect to include any other
provisions of part 93, subpart A. If the provisions of the following
sections of part 93, subpart A, of this chapter are included, such
provisions must be included in verbatim form, except insofar as needed
to clarify or to give effect to a stated intent in the revision to
establish criteria and procedures

more stringent than the requirements stated in this chapter: Sec. Sec.
93.101, 93.102, 93.103, 93.104, 93.106, 93.109, 93.110, 93.111, 93.112,
93.113, 93.114, 93.115, 93.116, 93.117, 93.118, 93.119, 93.120, 93.121,
93.126, and 93.127. A state's conformity provisions may contain
criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements described
in this subpart and part 93, subpart A, of this chapter only if the
state's conformity provisions apply equally to non-federal as well as
federal entities.
    (c) Timing and approval. A state must submit this revision to EPA
by November 25, 1994 or within 12 months of an area's redesignation
from attainment to nonattainment, if the state has not previously
submitted such a revision. The state must also revise its conformity
implementation plan within 12 months of the date of publication of any
final amendments to Sec. Sec.  93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c),
as appropriate. Any other portions of part 93, subpart A, of this
chapter that the state has included in its conformity implementation
plan and EPA has approved must be revised in the state's implementation
plan and submitted to EPA within 12 months of the date of publication
of any final amendments to such sections. EPA will provide DOT with a
30-day comment period before taking action to approve or disapprove the
submission. In order for EPA to approve the implementation plan
revision submitted to EPA under this subpart, the plan revision must
address and give full legal effect to the following three requirements
of part 93, subpart A: Sec. Sec.  93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c). Any other provisions that are incorporated into the
conformity implementation plan must also be done in a manner that gives
them full legal effect. Following EPA approval of the state conformity
provisions (or a portion thereof) in a revision to the state's
conformity implementation plan, conformity determinations will be
governed by the approved (or approved portion of the) state criteria
and procedures as well as any applicable portions of the federal
conformity rules that are not addressed by the approved conformity SIP.

PART 93--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
5. Section 93.101 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``Metropolitan planning organization
(MPO)'' and ``Transportation improvement program (TIP)''; and
0
b. Revising the first sentence of the definition for ``Transportation
control measure (TCM)''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  93.101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the policy board of
an organization created as a result of the designation process in 23
U.S.C. 134(d).
* * * * *
    Transportation control measure (TCM) is any measure that is
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable
implementation plan, including a substitute or additional TCM that is
incorporated into the applicable SIP through the process established in
CAA section 176(c)(8), that is either one of the types listed in CAA
section 108, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions
or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by
reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions.
* * *
    Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a transportation
improvement program developed by a metropolitan planning organization
under 23 U.S.C. 134(j).
* * * * *

Sec.  93.102  [Amended]

0
6. Section 93.102 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(v), by removing ``sulfur oxides
(SOX)'' and adding in its place ``sulfur dioxide
(SO2)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(4), removing ``for 20 years from the date EPA
approves the area's request under section 107(d) of the CAA for
redesignation to attainment'' and adding in its place ``through the
last year of a maintenance area's approved CAA section 175A(b)
maintenance plan''.

0
7. Section 93.104 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(3);
0
b. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text; and
0
c. By adding paragraph (f).

Sec.  93.104  Frequency of conformity determinations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) All transportation plan amendments must be found to conform
before the transportation plan amendments are approved by the MPO or
accepted by DOT, unless the amendment merely adds or deletes exempt
projects listed in Sec.  93.126 or Sec.  93.127. The conformity
determination must be based on the transportation plan and the
amendment taken as a whole.
    (3) The MPO and DOT must determine the conformity of the
transportation plan (including a new regional emissions analysis) no
less frequently than every four years. If more than four years elapse
after DOT's conformity determination without the MPO and DOT
determining conformity of the transportation plan, a 12-month grace
period will be implemented as described in paragraph (f) of this
section. At the end of this 12-month grace period, the existing
conformity determination will lapse.
    (c) * * *
    (3) The MPO and DOT must determine the conformity of the TIP
(including a new regional emissions analysis) no less frequently than
every four years. If more than four years elapse after DOT's conformity
determination without the MPO and DOT determining conformity of the
TIP, a 12-month grace period will be implemented as described in
paragraph (f) of this section. At the end of this 12-month grace
period, the existing conformity determination will lapse.
    (e) Triggers for transportation plan and TIP conformity
determinations. Conformity of existing transportation plans and TIPs
must be redetermined within two years of the following, or after a 12-
month grace period (as described in paragraph (f) of this section) the
existing conformity determination will lapse, and no new project-level
conformity determinations may be made until conformity of the
transportation plan and TIP has been determined by the MPO and DOT:
* * * * *
    (f) Lapse grace period. During the 12-month grace period referenced
in paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(3), and (e) of this section, a project may be
found to conform according to the requirements of this part if:
    (1) The project is included in the currently conforming
transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis); or
    (2) the project is included in the most recent conforming
transportation plan and TIP (or regional emissions analysis).

Sec.  93.105  [Amended]

0
8. Section 93.105 is amended by removing ``revisions or'' in paragraph
(c)(1)(v), and by removing the reference ``23 CFR 450.316(b)'' in
paragraph (e) and adding in its place ``23 CFR 450.316(a)''.

0
9. Section 93.106 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading;

0
b. By revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv);
0
c. By adding new paragraph (a)(v);
0
d. By redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e); and
0
e. By adding new paragraph (d).

Sec.  93.106  Content of transportation plans and timeframe of
conformity determinations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The attainment year must be a horizon year if it is in the
timeframe of the transportation plan and conformity determination;
    (iv) The last year of the transportation plan's forecast period
must be a horizon year; and
    (v) If the timeframe of the conformity determination has been
shortened under paragraph (d) of this section, the last year of the
timeframe of the conformity determination must be a horizon year.
* * * * *
    (d) Timeframe of conformity determination.
    (1) Unless an election is made under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of
this section, the timeframe of the conformity determination must be
through the last year of the transportation plan's forecast period.
    (2) For areas that do not have an adequate or approved CAA section
175A(b) maintenance plan, the MPO may elect to shorten the timeframe of
the transportation plan and TIP conformity determination, after
consultation with state and local air quality agencies, solicitation of
public comments, and consideration of such comments.
    (i) The shortened timeframe of the conformity determination must
extend at least to the latest of the following years:
    (A) The tenth year of the transportation plan;
    (B) The latest year for which an adequate or approved motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) is established in the submitted or applicable
implementation plan; or
    (C) The year after the completion date of a regionally significant
project if the project is included in the TIP or the project requires
approval before the subsequent conformity determination.
    (ii) The conformity determination must be accompanied by a regional
emissions analysis (for informational purposes only) for the last year
of the transportation plan and for any year shown to exceed motor
vehicle emissions budgets in a prior regional emissions analysis, if
such a year extends beyond the timeframe of the conformity
determination.
    (3) For areas that have an adequate or approved CAA section 175A(b)
maintenance plan, the MPO may elect to shorten the timeframe of the
conformity determination to extend through the last year of such
maintenance plan after consultation with state and local air quality
agencies, solicitation of public comments, and consideration of such
comments.
    (4) Any election made by an MPO under paragraphs (d)(2) or (d)(3)
of this section shall continue in effect until the MPO elects
otherwise, after consultation with state and local air quality
agencies, solicitation of public comments, and consideration of such
comments.
* * * * *

Sec.  93.109  [Amended]

0
10. Section 93.109 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text of paragraph (e)(2);
0
b. By removing paragraph (e)(2)(v); and
0
c. By revising paragraph (l)(2)(i):

Sec.  93.109  Criteria and procedures for determining conformity of
transportation plans, programs, and projects: General.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Prior to paragraph (e)(1) of this section applying, the
following test(s) must be satisfied:
* * * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) When the requirements of Sec. Sec.  93.106(d), 93.116, 93.118,
and 93.119 apply to isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas,
references to ``transportation plan'' or ``TIP'' should be taken to
mean those projects in the statewide transportation plan or statewide
TIP which are in the rural nonattainment or maintenance area. When the
requirements of Sec.  93.106(d) apply to isolated rural nonattainment
and maintenance areas, references to ``MPO'' should be taken to mean
the state department of transportation.

0
11. Section 93.114 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  93.114  Criteria and procedures: Currently conforming
transportation plan and TIP.

    There must be a currently conforming transportation plan and
currently conforming TIP at the time of project approval, or a project
must meet the requirements in Sec.  93.104(f) during the 12-month lapse
grace period.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 93.115 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  93.115  Criteria and procedures: Projects from a transportation
plan and TIP.

* * * * *
    (e) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) of this section, a project must meet the requirements of Sec.
93.104(f) during the 12-month lapse grace period.

0
13. Section 93.116(a) is amended in the fourth sentence by removing
``(or regional emissions analysis)''.

0
14. Section 93.118 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. By revising the first sentence in paragraph (d)(2); and
0
c. By adding new paragraph (d)(3).

Sec.  93.118  Criteria and procedures: Motor vehicle emissions budget.

* * * * *
    (b) Consistency with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) must be
demonstrated for each year for which the applicable (and/or submitted)
implementation plan specifically establishes motor vehicle emissions
budget(s), for the attainment year (if it is within the timeframe of
the transportation plan and conformity determination), for the last
year of the timeframe of the conformity determination (as described
under Sec.  93.106(d)), and for any intermediate years within the
timeframe of the conformity determination as necessary so that the
years for which consistency is demonstrated are no more than ten years
apart, as follows:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) The regional emissions analysis may be performed for any years
in the timeframe of the conformity determination (as described under
Sec.  93.106(d)) provided they are not more than ten years apart and
provided the analysis is performed for the attainment year (if it is in
the timeframe of the transportation plan and conformity determination)
and the last year of the timeframe of the conformity determination. * *
*
    (3) When the timeframe of the conformity determination is shortened
under Sec.  93.106(d)(2), the conformity determination must be
accompanied by a regional emissions analysis (for informational
purposes only) for the last year of the transportation plan, and for
any year shown to exceed motor vehicle emissions budgets in a prior
regional emissions analysis (if such a year

extends beyond the timeframe of the conformity determination).
* * * * *

0
15. Section 93.119 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (f)(10), by removing ``SOX'' and adding
``SO2'' in its place;
0
b. By revising the last sentence in paragraph (g)(1); and
0
c. By adding new paragraph (g)(3).

Sec.  93.119  Criteria and procedures: Interim emissions in areas
without motor vehicle emissions budgets.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * * The last year of the timeframe of the conformity
determination (as described under Sec.  93.106(d)) must also be an
analysis year.
* * * * *
    (3) When the timeframe of the conformity determination is shortened
under Sec.  93.106(d)(2), the conformity determination must be
accompanied by a regional emissions analysis (for informational
purposes only) for the last year of the transportation plan.
* * * * *

0
16. Section 93.120 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  93.120  Consequences of control strategy implementation plan
failures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) If EPA disapproves a submitted control strategy implementation
plan revision without making a protective finding, only projects in the
first four years of the currently conforming transportation plan and
TIP or that meet the requirements of Sec.  93.104(f) during the 12-
month lapse grace period may be found to conform. This means that
beginning on the effective date of a disapproval without a protective
finding, no transportation plan, TIP, or project not in the first four
years of the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP or that
meets the requirements of Sec.  93.104(f) during the 12-month lapse
grace period may be found to conform until another control strategy
implementation plan revision fulfilling the same CAA requirements is
submitted, EPA finds its motor vehicle emissions budget(s) adequate
pursuant to Sec.  93.118 or approves the submission, and conformity to
the implementation plan revision is determined.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 93.121 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  93.121  Requirements for adoption or approval of projects by
other recipients of funds designated under title 23 U.S.C. or the
Federal Transit Laws.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The project comes from the currently conforming transportation
plan and TIP (or meets the requirements of Sec.  93.104(f) during the
12-month lapse grace period), and the project's design concept and
scope have not changed significantly from those that were included in
the regional emissions analysis for that transportation plan and TIP;
    (2) The project is included in the regional emissions analysis for
the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP conformity
determination (or meets the requirements of Sec.  93.104(f) during the
12-month lapse grace period), even if the project is not strictly
included in the transportation plan or TIP for the purpose of MPO
project selection or endorsement, and the project's design concept and
scope have not changed significantly from those that were included in
the regional emissions analysis; or
* * * * *
0
18. Section 93.123 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising
paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  93.123  Procedures for determining localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5
concentrations (hot-spot analysis).

    (a) * * *
    (3) DOT, in consultation with EPA, may also choose to make a
categorical hot-spot finding that (93.116(a) is met without further
hot-spot analysis for any project described in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section based on appropriate modeling. DOT, in
consultation with EPA, may also consider the current air quality
circumstances of a given CO nonattainment or maintenance area in
categorical hot-spot findings for applicable FHWA or FTA projects.
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) New highway projects that have a significant number of diesel
vehicles, and expanded highway projects that have a significant
increase in the number of diesel vehicles;
* * * * *

Sec.  93.126  [Amended]

0
19. Table 2 in Sec.  93.126 is amended under the heading ``Safety'' as
follows:
0
a. By removing the entry ``Hazard elimination program'' and adding in
its place ``Projects that correct, improve, or eliminate a hazardous
location or feature'';
0
b. By removing the entry ``Safety improvement program'' and adding in
its place ``Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation''; and
0
c. By removing the entry ``Pavement marking demonstration'' and adding
in its place ``Pavement marking''.

[FR Doc. E8-597 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P