[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 3766]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13102-003]

Birch Power Company; Notice of Technical Meeting

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: January 23, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time).
    b. Place: Telephone conference.
    c. FERC Contact: Adam Peer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (202) 502-
8449.
    d. Purpose of Meeting: Commission Staff is hosting a technical
meeting to discuss the details of Birch Power's proposed Spoils
Disposal Plan filed on May 21, 2014.
    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the
Commission's public file for the project.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call
Adam Peer at<PHONE_NUMBER> by January 17, 2017, to RSVP and to receive
specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: January 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00562 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13591]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2266-102]

Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Extension of Time for
Filing of Motions To Intervene and Protests, Comments, Recommendations,
Preliminary Terms and Conditions, Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions,
Response Comments, and Final License Application Amendments

    As stated in a letter dated February 24, 2012, in this proceeding
by the Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing, the date for filing
of motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway
prescriptions, established by the Commission's notice issued on January
19, 2012,\1\ for the Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project No. 2266-102, has
been extended to July 31, 2012, with response comments due by September
14, 2012. The filing of final license application amendments has been
extended to June 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting
Motions to Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis,
and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and
Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions.

     Dated: February 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5538 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42433]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0547]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, Lynn and Revere,
MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
General Edwards Bridge, mile 1.7, across the Saugus River between Lynn
and Revere, Massachusetts. The deviation is necessary to facilitate
major bridge rehabilitation construction. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position during the rehabilitation of
the electrical and mechanical components that lift the bridge spans.

DATES: This deviation is effective from September 4, 2012 through
February 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0547 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0547 in the ``Keyword'' and
then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Edwards Bridge, across the
Saugus River, mile 1.7, between Lynn and Revere, Massachusetts, has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 27 feet at mean high water
and 36 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are
listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b).
    The waterway users are recreational vessels of various sizes.
During the non-boating season the bridge rarely opens since the
recreational vessels that transit this waterway are normally in winter
storage. The bridge has opened five times since 2010 during the winter
months.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to
help facilitate rehabilitation of the electrical and mechanical
components that lift the opening spans.
    Under this temporary deviation the General Edwards Bridge may
remain in the closed position from September 4, 2012 through February
27, 2013.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time.
    The Coast Guard believes that this temporary deviation meets the
reasonable needs of navigation because the recreational users that
normally use this bridge are recreational vessels that do not operate
during the winter months when this deviation will be in effect.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge 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: June 29, 2012.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-17577 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5091-5093]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55179; File No. SR-Amex-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Passive Price
Improvement Order for Specialists and Registered Traders

January 26, 2007.
    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 January 19, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Amex proposes to amend its rules with respect to its new
AEMISM trading platform and hybrid market structure for
equity products and exchange-traded funds (``ETFs''), recently approved
by the Commission,\3\ to add a new Passive Price Improvement (``PPI'')
order type to encourage Specialists and Registered Traders to provide
aggressing orders with increased opportunities for price improvement.
PPI orders would be the only method by which Specialists and Registered
Traders could offer price improvement electronically and would provide
undisplayed liquidity that reacts to aggressing orders according to
criteria met at the time of order entry. PPI orders are intended to
replicate in part the dynamics of floor-based trading in an electronic
environment, and the Exchange believes that they would act as an
incentive for the Exchange's Specialists and Registered Traders to
quote more aggressively and add liquidity to the market. This should
serve to assist the specialists and market makers in maintaining the
continuity and depth of the marketplace, increase the quality of the
market, and dampen volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54552 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59546 (October 10, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at Amex's Office of the Secretary and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    To encourage Specialists and Registered Traders to provide
aggressing orders with increased opportunities for price improvement,
the Exchange is proposing to adopt a new Passive Price Improvement
(``PPI'') order type. This would be the only method by which
Specialists and Registered Traders could offer price improvement
electronically. This interest would be undisplayed and reside inside
the APQ, and its purpose is to offer price improvement to an aggressing
order. The ability to offer price improvement would be linked to the
competitiveness and size of the Amex liquidity provider's own displayed
quote. PPI orders are intended to replicate in part the dynamics of
floor-based trading in an electronic environment and the Exchange
believes that they would act as an incentive for the Exchange's
Specialists and Registered Traders to quote more aggressively and add
liquidity to the market. This should also serve to maintain continuity
and depth in the marketplace as well as to increase the quality of the
market and dampen volatility.
    A Specialist or Registered Trader could have only a single,
undisplayed PPI order per side in a particular security on the AEMI
Book at any point in time, which must be inside the APQ and would be
permitted only if the user has at least one quote for that side in the
AEMI Book. A PPI order would not form part of the APQ and would be
visible only to the entering Specialist or Registered Trader or his
firm or group. A PPI order on the AEMI Book could be of any size, but
its eligibility for execution would be assessed at the time of
execution against an incoming order, and would be based on the
competitiveness of the participant's quote at that time.
    AEMI would make a PPI order eligible for execution if at least one
of the following two conditions is met; otherwise AEMI would ignore the
PPI order:
    1. The Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote is at
the APQ on the side of the PPI order that would be executed. In this
case, the PPI order would be executed up to (a) the size of the
Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote or (b) the size of
the incoming order, whichever is smaller. Any balance of the PPI order
would be considered ineligible to trade against the incoming order and
will be ignored.
    2. The Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote is (i)
one tick away from the APQ on the side of the PPI order that would be
executed, and (ii) at least double the size of the APQ on the side of
the PPI order that would be executed. In this case, the PPI order would
be executed up to (a) half of the size of the Specialist's or
Registered Trader's displayed quote or (b) the size of the incoming
order, whichever is smaller. Any balance of the PPI order would be
considered ineligible to trade against the incoming order and would be
ignored.
    In both cases, as with other aggressing orders, intermarket sweep
orders would be generated to clear any better-priced protected
quotations at other markets.
    The two conditions above balance the need to provide meaningful
price improvement opportunities in the form of undisplayed liquidity
with the need to ensure the competitiveness of displayed quotations.
    The AEMI platform would ignore (i.e., make ineligible for execution
against an aggressing order, without canceling) a PPI order on the AEMI
Book that locks or crosses the automated NBBO or APQ as a result of a
change in the automated NBBO or APQ or equals the APQ on the same side
of the market. If there are multiple PPI orders at the same price, the
Specialist's PPI order would take priority over a Registered Trader's
PPI order. This provision recognizes the fact that Specialists have
higher capital requirements, more stringent quoting obligations, and
more trading obligations (both negative and

affirmative) and responsibilities to maintain a fair and orderly
market, and seeks to reward the Specialist for his central role in
providing liquidity to the marketplace. It also encourages Registered
Traders to make tighter markets and enhances competition among the
liquidity providers. PPI orders would not participate in negotiated
trades, and they would be ignored when auto-ex is disabled.
    For example, assume that the NBB is $6.90 bid for 2,500 shares,
comprising NYSE and ARCA for 1,000 shares each, and INET for 500
shares. The Specialist is bidding $6.89 for 2,000 shares, and
represents the Amex best bid which is published in the APQ. Registered
Traders 1, 2, and 3 are each quoting $6.87
bid for 500 shares each. The Specialist has a PPI order at $6.91 bid
for 3,000 shares; Registered Traders 1 and 2 each
have a PPI order at $6.91 bid for 500 shares; and Registered Trader
3 has a PPI order at $6.91 bid for 300 shares. An incoming
order to sell 3,000 shares at $6.90 would trade 2,000 shares against
the Specialist at $6.91, since the Specialist's quote is at the APQ and
the PPI order may be executed only up to the size of the Specialist's
displayed quote. The remaining balance of 1,000 shares would be routed
away at $6.90. The PPI orders of the Registered Traders were ignored in
this case since none of their displayed quotes were either at the APQ
or a tick away from the APQ.
    As a second example, assume that the NBB is $6.89 bid for 3,000
shares, comprising the Amex best bid. The Specialist is bidding $6.89
for 2,000 shares and a Registered Trader is bidding $6.89 for 1,000
shares. The Specialist has a PPI order at $6.91 bid for 3,000 shares
and the Registered Trader has a PPI order at $6.91 bid for 1,000
shares. An incoming limit order to buy 100 shares at $6.90 arrives on
the AEMI Book, creating a new NBB and Amex best bid. This is followed
by an incoming order to sell 2,500 shares at the market. At the time of
execution of the incoming order, the Specialist and the Registered
Trader are a tick away from the APQ, and their PPI orders may therefore
each trade up to only half of the size of the participant's displayed
quote. Both PPI orders are eligible since both participants are quoting
at least double the size of the APQ. The incoming order trades 1,000
shares at $6.91 against the Specialist's PPI order, 500 shares at $6.91
against the Registered Trader's PPI order, 100 shares at $6.90 against
the order on the AEMI Book, and the balance of 900 shares at $6.89
against the displayed quotes of the Specialist and the Registered
Trader. The unexecuted balances of the PPI orders remain on the AEMI
Book.
    The specific AEMI rules to which changes are being proposed are
discussed below.
    Rule 123--AEMI--Manner of Bidding and Offering
    An additional phrase is being added to section (e) of Rule 123--
AEMI to provide that AEMI would not display a PPI order.
    Rule 131--AEMI--Types of Orders
    The Exchange is proposing to add the definition of a PPI order to
section (q) of Rule 131-AEMI. The proposed definition would contain the
two conditions under which a PPI order would be eligible for execution
by AEMI, as described above. Under the proposed definition, a PPI order
would be an order submitted to AEMI by a Specialist or a Registered
Trader to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified,
undisplayed price. A Specialist or Registered Trader could have only
one PPI order to buy and/or one PPI order to sell a particular security
on the AEMI Book at any point in time. A Registered Trader would have
to be actively quoting a security in order to enter a PPI order in the
security.
    The proposed definition would provide that AEMI would reject a new
PPI order (i) if it is not priced inside APQ (above the bid and below
the offer) at the time of entry into AEMI, (ii) if it is marked ``sell
short'' (except for certain securities that have been granted no-action
relief from a short sale price test, such as ETFs and Regulation SHO
Pilot securities), although not if it is marked ``sell short exempt''
or (iii) if the order would lock or cross the automated NBBO.
    AEMI would cancel a PPI order on the AEMI Book (i) if the
Specialist's or Registered Trader's best quote is withdrawn, (ii) at
the end of the day, or (iii) if there is a trading halt in the
security.
    AEMI would ignore (i.e., make ineligible for execution against an
aggressing order, without canceling) a PPI order on the AEMI Book (i)
if the two conditions for execution eligibility described above are not
met, (ii) if automatic execution becomes disabled, (iii) if the price
of the PPI order locks or crosses the automated NBBO or APQ as a result
of a change in the automated NBBO or APQ, or (iv) if the price of the
PPI order equals the APQ on the same side of the market. With respect
to (iii) and (iv) in the previous sentence, AEMI would continue to
ignore the PPI order and prevent the person who entered it from
entering a new PPI order on the same side of the market until the
automated NBBO or APQ, changes so that the PPI order no longer locks or
crosses the automated NBBO or APQ, or no longer is equal to the APQ on
the same side of the market, or the person who entered the PPI order
cancels it.
    The proposed rule change also provides that, if there is more than
one PPI order in the AEMI Book, AEMI would execute the orders in price/
time priority, provided, however, that Specialist PPI orders would be
given priority over Registered Trader PPI orders at the same price. A
PPI order would not be displayed in the APQ and would be visible only
to the Specialist or Registered Trader who entered it or to his or her
firm. AEMI would only execute PPI orders only when automatic execution
is enabled. AEMI would execute PPI orders only against aggressing
orders (or elected or converted stop and percentage orders). PPI orders
would not participate in the execution of cross-only or mid-point cross
orders or in the execution of auction trades.
    Finally, the proposed definition provides that a PPI order could be
entered only during the regular trading session and will not
participate in an opening, reopening, cash closing, or regular closing.
    The proposed rule change also would add language to section (r) of
Rule 131--AEMI relating to cross orders to clarify how PPI orders would
interact with the new electronic cross order types that will be
available in AEMI. While ``cross-only'' or ``mid-point'' cross orders
would not execute against PPI orders, ``IOC cross,'' ``cross,'' and
``PNP cross'' orders could execute against any executable PPI orders at
the price of the PPI orders. In the case of auction cross orders, the
displayed order could be price-improved by PPI orders in the AEMI Book
as well as by new bids, offers, or orders entering the AEMI Book during
the three-second auction cross duration.
    Rule 157--AEMI--Orders with More than One Broker
    The Exchange is proposing to add a phrase to section (b) of Rule
157--AEMI to clarify that a Registered Trader may maintain a PPI order
in AEMI while he is maintaining a bid or offer for the same security in
AEMI.
    Rule 170--AEMI--Registration and Functions of Specialists
    The Exchange is proposing to add language to Commentaries .01 and
.02 of Rule 170--AEMI to allow transactions by the Specialist in
certain ``tick'' situations without the approval of a Floor Official if
the Specialist effects the transaction by means of a PPI order.

(2) Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is designed to be consistent with
Regulation NMS, as well as consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\5\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 1934 Act. Comments may be submitted by
any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's Internet comment form at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
 or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please

include File No. SR-Amex-2007-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2007-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 at 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 No. SR-Amex-2007-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 23, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1689 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7340-7347]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02233]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0017; FRL-9774-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Sandpoint PM[bdi1][bdi0] Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan
and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part
the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Idaho on
December 14, 2011, for the Sandpoint nonattainment area (Sandpoint NAA)
for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10), and to approve the
State's request to redesignate this area to attainment for the
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA
is proposing to disapprove a separable part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP
that does not meet LMP eligibility criteria or applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP that
the EPA is proposing to approve complies with applicable requirements
and meets the requirements of the CAA for full approval. The EPA is
also proposing to approve the State's redesignation request because it
meets CAA requirements for redesignation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0017, by any of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    C. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office
of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0017. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
    A. PM10 NAAQS
    B. Planning Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. Requirements for Redesignation
    A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas
    B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
V. Review of the State's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs
    A. Has the Sandpoint NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
    B. Does the Sandpoint NAA have a fully approved SIP under
Section 110(k) of the CAA?
    C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA?
    D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
    E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA?
    F. Has the State demonstrated that the Sandpoint NAA qualifies
for the LMP option?
    G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions
inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
    H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
    I. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for
contingency provisions?
    J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Revisions to Sandpoint PM10 SIP
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the
LMP submitted by the State of Idaho on December 14, 2011, for the
Sandpoint NAA, and to approve the State's request to redesignate this
area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The Sandpoint NAA LMP
submittal included a request to approve revisions to the control
measures included in the PM10 attainment State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Sandpoint NAA. The EPA is proposing
to approve the revised Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 for control of
residential burning because it strengthens the SIP. The EPA is also
proposing to approve the State's request to remove the Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit control measure from
the SIP because the facility has been shut down, dismantled, and is no
longer in operation. However, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the
State's request to remove the operating permits for two other sources
because these

sources are still in operation and the State did not provide a
demonstration that removal of the two permits would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, the removal of
controls that were relied on to demonstrate attainment would disqualify
the Sandpoint NAA for LMP eligibility and require that the State submit
a full maintenance plan. Because the State submitted the Sandpoint NAA
LMP intending to qualify for the LMP option, and did not submit a full
maintenance plan, we are proposing to disapprove the separable portion
of the submittal that is not consistent with the LMP qualifying
criteria. This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent the State
from submitting a subsequent SIP revision demonstrating that the
removal of the two operating permits does not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval would be simultaneously
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place.
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP would be in place and
no further submittal would be required from the State to address the
partial disapproval.

II. Background

A. PM10 NAAQS

    ``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. The
size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing
health problems. The EPA is concerned about particles that are 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that
generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once
inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause
serious health effects. People with heart or lung diseases, children
and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle
pollution exposure. However, even healthy individuals may experience
temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of particle
pollution.
    On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated a NAAQS for PM10
(52 FR 24634). The EPA established a 24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\
and an annual standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\, expressed as an annual
arithmetic mean. The EPA also promulgated secondary PM10
standards identical to the primary standards. In a rulemaking action
dated October 17, 2006, the EPA retained the 24-hour PM10
standard but revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61144,
effective December 18, 2006).

B. Planning Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA designated the Sandpoint area as a
PM10 nonattainment area due to measured violations of the
24-hour PM10 standard (52 FR 29383). The notice announcing
the designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments was published
on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 6, 1991, the Sandpoint NAA
was classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of
the CAA (56 FR 56694).
    The Sandpoint NAA is located in northern Idaho and includes the
communities of Sandpoint, Kootenai, and Ponderay, covering
approximately fifteen square miles of Bonner County. The Sandpoint NAA
is a low-lying area, at 2085 feet above sea level, surrounded by
mountain ranges with varying heights of approximately 3000 to 7000
feet. The Sandpoint NAA is located approximately 46 miles north of
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and 70 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington.
    After the Sandpoint NAA was designated nonattainment for
PM10, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
worked with the communities of Sandpoint, Kootenai, and Ponderay to
develop a plan to bring the area into attainment no later than December
31, 1996. The State submitted the plan to the EPA on August 16, 1996,
as a moderate PM10 SIP under section 189(a) of the CAA. The
moderate PM10 SIP included a comprehensive residential wood
combustion program, controls on fugitive road dust, and emission
limitations on industrial sources. The EPA took final action to approve
the Sandpoint moderate PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR
43006). On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA had
attained the PM10 NAAQS (75 FR 35302).
    On December 14, 2011, the State submitted to the EPA the Sandpoint
NAA LMP for approval, and requested that the EPA redesignate the
Sandpoint NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The State
also requested approval to revise control measures in the Sandpoint
PM10 SIP. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve in
part and disapprove in part the Sandpoint NAA LMP, and to concurrently
redesignate the Sandpoint area from nonattainment to attainment for the
PM10 NAAQS.

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a state to the EPA. The State
of Idaho provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the
Sandpoint NAA LMP from October 11, 2011 to November 10, 2011. A notice
of public hearing was published in the Coeur d'Alene Press and the
Bonner County Daily Bee on October 11, 2011. The State held a public
hearing on December 9, 2011, in Sandpoint, Idaho. This SIP revision was
submitted by the Governor's designee to the EPA on December 14, 2011.
The EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and determined that the
State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

IV. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Area

    A nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing the NAAQS has been attained,
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for
redesignation (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). These criteria are further
clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, entitled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni
Memo). The criteria for redesignation are:
    1. The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    2. the Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    3. the state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    4. the Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
    5. the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from

Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division,
entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option Memo). The LMP Option Memo contains a
statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality
criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard
ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the maintenance
demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in the LMP Option
Memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these areas,
and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation
conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
PM10 NAAQS and, based upon the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, the 24-hour design value
should be at or below 98 [micro]g/m\3\. If an area cannot meet this
test, it may still be able to qualify for the LMP Option if the average
design value (ADV) for the area is less than the site-specific critical
design value (CDV). In addition, the area should expect only limited
growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including
fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. The LMP Option Memo also identifies core
provisions that must be included in the LMP. These provisions include
an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued
operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and
contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the
area.
    While qualification for the LMP Option does not exempt an area from
the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated without
submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets
are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the
maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be
unlimited.

V. Review of the State's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMPs

A. Has the Sandpoint NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    To demonstrate that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS,
states must submit an analysis of ambient air quality data from an
ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be quality-assured and stored in the
EPA Air Quality System database. The EPA has reviewed air quality data
for the area and has confirmed that the Sandpoint NAA attained the
PM10 NAAQS \1\ by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 1996 and continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA's
analysis is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked
effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006),
this notice discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10
standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m\3\. An area has
attained this 24-hour standard if the average number of expected
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be
collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58
including appendices).
    On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA
attained the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302).
The EPA has also reviewed more recent ambient air quality data for the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and has determined that the Sandpoint
NAA continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A summary of
the EPA's data review and analysis can be found in the docket for this
action (Sandpoint PM10 NAAQS LMP Memo, dated September 13,
2012).
    A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by the State to the EPA on
January 15, 1980, and approved by the EPA on July 28, 1982 (40 CFR
52.670). Updated monitoring plans have been subsequently submitted and
approved, with the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2012 and
approved on October 25, 2012. The monitoring plan describes the
PM10 monitoring network throughout Idaho, which includes the
Sandpoint monitoring site. In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the
State states that the Idaho DEQ has monitored PM10 in
Sandpoint since 1985, and that data from 1996 through 2008 show that
PM10 concentrations remain well below the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. In addition, the State states that the Sandpoint
monitoring site is operated in compliance with the EPA monitoring
guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance. Data from the Sandpoint monitoring site has been quality
assured by Idaho DEQ and submitted to the EPA Air Quality System (AQS),
accessible through the EPA AirData Web site at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.

B. Does the Sandpoint NAA have a fully approved SIP under Section
110(k) of the CAA?

    To qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA, and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. As discussed in Section II.B.
above, the State submitted the Sandpoint PM10 SIP to the EPA
on August 16, 1996. The EPA fully approved the Sandpoint
PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002, as satisfying all requirements
that apply to the area (67 FR 43006). Thus, the area has a fully
approved nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment the state must meet all applicable
requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA. The EPA
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how the
State meets these requirements.
(1) CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited
to: submittal of a SIP adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program;

provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting;
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). For purposes of
redesignating the Sandpoint NAA, the EPA has reviewed the Idaho SIP and
finds that the State has satisfied all applicable requirements under
CAA section 110(a)(2) for the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA's approval
of the State's SIP for attainment and maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS under CAA section 110 can be found at 40 CFR
52.673.
(2) Part D Requirements
    CAA part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following
paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the Sandpoint
NAA.
(2)(a) Part D, Section 172(c)(2)--Reasonable Further Progress
    CAA section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment
area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in
the General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). CAA section
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for reasonable
further progress (RFP). Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part (part D of title I) or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by
the applicable date.'' The requirements for RFP, identification of
certain emissions increases and other measures needed for attainment
were satisfied with the approved Sandpoint moderate PM10 SIP
(67 FR 43006). On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint
NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR
35302), therefore the State has demonstrated that no further showing of
RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
(2)(b) Part D, Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Sandpoint
NAA. The State included an emissions inventory dated March 31, 2006 in
the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal. The State used 1999 as a base year for
the emissions inventory because the State determined that it is
representative of emissions during the five year period (1996-2001)
associated with air quality data demonstrating attainment, and that a
more current inventory would not find higher total emissions rates that
those estimated for 1999. The State has demonstrated that the 1999 base
year emissions inventory is current, accurate, and comprehensive, and
therefore meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
(2)(c) Part D, Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR. A state must have an approved major NSR
program that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). The Part
D NSR rules for PM10 nonattainment areas in Idaho were
approved by the EPA on July 23, 1993 (58 FR 39445) and amended on
January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Revisions to Idaho's NSR rules were most
recently approved by the EPA on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Within
the boundaries of the Sandpoint NAA, the requirements of the Part D NSR
program will be replaced by the State's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program requirements upon the effective date of
redesignation.
(2)(d) Part D, Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section
110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify the attainment status of the area. On January 15, 1980, the
State submitted a comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. The EPA approved the plan
on July 28, 1982 (40 CFR 52.760). This monitoring plan has been
updated, with the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2012 and approved
on October 25, 2012. The monitoring plan describes the PM10
monitoring network throughout Idaho, including the Sandpoint monitoring
site. The Sandpoint monitoring site is operated in compliance with the
EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air
Quality Surveillance. In addition, the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal
provides a commitment to continue operation of the PM10
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to annually
verify continued attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in
Sandpoint.
(2)(e) Part D, Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if an area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that
the Sandpoint NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302), therefore
contingency measures are no longer required under Section 172 (c)(9) of
the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance
plans under Section 175(a)(d). Please see section IV.I. for a
description of Idaho's maintenance plan contingency provisions.
(2)(f) Part D, Section 189(a), (c) and (e)--Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas
    CAA sections 189(a), (c) and (e) apply to moderate PM10
nonattainment areas. Any of these requirements which were applicable
and due prior to the submission of the redesignation request must be
fully approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to
attainment. With respect to the Sandpoint NAA, these requirements
include:
    (a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
were implemented by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C));
    (b) either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable (section
189(a)(1)(B));
    (c) quantitative milestones which were achieved every three years
and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994
(section 189(c)(1)); and
    (d) provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
area (section 189(e)).

    Provisions for reasonably available control measures, attainment
demonstration, and RFP milestones were fully approved into the SIP upon
the EPA approval of the Sandpoint PM10 SIP for the Sandpoint
NAA on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43006). The EPA approved changes to Idaho's
major NSR rules on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41916) and November 26, 2010
(75 FR 72719). Idaho's major nonattainment NSR rules and PSD rules
include control requirements that apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 and PM10 precursors in nonattainment and
attainment/unclassifiable areas.

D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that a nonattainment
area may not be redesignated unless the EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP.
Therefore, a state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement
in air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions by
demonstrating that air quality improvements are the result of actual
enforceable emission reductions. This showing should consider emission
rates, production capacities, and other related information. The
analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels
(or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented that such an
assumption is unrealistic.
    Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Sandpoint
PM10 SIP include controls on residential wood combustion,
fugitive road dust, and industrial sources of emissions. The Sandpoint
NAA LMP submittal describes the efforts started in 1995 to control
residential wood combustion in the City of Sandpoint, which included a
public awareness campaign, an uncertified woodstove replacement
program, and a new city ordinance related to woodstoves and burning.
The public awareness program provided citizens with information about
stove sizing, installation, proper operation and maintenance, general
health risks of wood smoke, new stove technology, and alternatives to
wood heating. The replacement program resulted in the removal of 84
uncertified wood stoves which were replaced by natural gas units,
certified wood stoves, and pellet stoves. In addition, the Sandpoint
NAA LMP submittal describes Sandpoint Ordinance 965, which restricts
the sale and installation of uncertified solid fuel heating appliances,
and implements a wood burning curtailment program in the City of
Sandpoint.
    The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal also describes measures to reduce
particulate matter emissions due to winter sanding of road surfaces in
the City of Sandpoint including changing the type and volume of sanding
material used, using alternative materials, and increasing the
frequency of street sweeping. Sandpoint City Ordinance 939, adopted in
1994, requires applicators of anti-skid material to use only material
that meets certain standards for percentages of fines and durability.
In addition, the Sandpoint Independent Highway District and Idaho
Transportation Department have acquired equipment to apply liquid de-
icer and have also designated certain roads in Sandpoint as an ``anti-
skid free zone.''
    Finally, the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal describes the control
measures relied on to address industrial source emissions. The State
developed emissions limits for facilities in the Sandpoint NAA through
the Tier II Operating Permit Program, with input from each facility to
ensure the reductions in potential to emit were feasible and offered
sufficient operational flexibility. Portions of the Tier II operating
permits for three sources, Louisiana Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint,
Lake Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt were approved into
the Sandpoint PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43006).
    The controls on residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust,
and industrial sources of emissions described above were approved by
the EPA into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP, and are both permanent
and Federally-enforceable (67 FR 43006). However, Idaho's Sandpoint NAA
LMP submittal included a request to remove the three Tier II operating
permits from the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The EPA is proposing to
approve the State's request to remove the Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit from the SIP because the
facility has ceased operations and has been dismantled. The EPA is
proposing to disapprove the State's request to remove the two other
operating permits (Lake Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt)
because the submittal did not include a demonstration that removal of
the two permits would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the PM10 NAAQS. This proposed partial disapproval does not
prevent the State from submitting a subsequent SIP revision to remove
the two Tier II operating permits with the required demonstration.
    The EPA has concluded that areas that qualify for the LMP Option
will meet the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions.
Therefore, under the LMP Option, the maintenance demonstration is
presumed to be satisfied if an area meets the criteria to qualify for a
LMP. An application of the LMP qualifying criteria to the Sandpoint NAA
is provided below. By qualifying for a LMP, the State presumptively
demonstrates that the air quality improvements in the Sandpoint NAA are
the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either
economic trends or meteorology.

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the Act?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMP in accordance
with the principles outlined in the LMP Option Memo. Upon final
approval, the Sandpoint NAA will have a fully approved maintenance
plan.

F. Has the State demonstrated that the Sandpoint NAA qualifies for the
LMP option?

    The LMP Option Memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for a LMP. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. On
June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA attained the
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302). The EPA has
reviewed more recent ambient air quality data for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, and has determined that the Sandpoint NAA
continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Please see
section V.A. for a detailed discussion.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past five years of
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value (CDV).
The CDV is a margin of safety value at which an area has been
determined to have a one in ten probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The
LMP Option Memo provides two methods to review monitoring data for the
purpose of determining qualification for a LMP. The first method is a
comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS. A second method that applies to the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is the calculation of a site-specific CDV and a
comparison of the site-specific CDV with the ADV for the past five
years of monitoring data. The State's LMP submittal provides a
comparison of five-year ADVs compared to the 24-hour and annual CDVs
for the years 2004-2008, as described in the first method for review of
monitoring data to determine qualification for a

LMP. The State's analysis demonstrates that the Sandpoint NAA has met
the LMP design value criteria since 1999, the base year for the most
recent emissions inventory. The EPA has reviewed the calculations and
concurs with the State's findings. The EPA also calculated ADVs using
more recent data and found that the Sandpoint NAA meets the LMP design
value criteria for the period 2007-2011. The EPA's design value
calculations and analysis can be found in the docket for this action
(Sandpoint PM10 NAAQS LMP Memo, dated September 13, 2012).
Therefore, the EPA finds that the Sandpoint NAA meets the design value
criteria outlined in the LMP Option Memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test described in attachment B of the LMP Option Memo. Using
the methodology outlined in the LMP Option Memo, the State has
submitted an analysis of whether increased emissions from on-road
mobile sources would increase PM10 concentrations in the
Sandpoint NAA to levels that would threaten the assumption of
maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. Based on monitoring data for
the period 2004-2008, the State has determined that the Sandpoint NAA
passes the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. The EPA has
reviewed the calculations in the State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal
and concurs with this conclusion.
    The LMP Option Memo requires all controls relied on to demonstrate
attainment remain in place for a NAA to qualify for a LMP. The controls
on residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust, and industrial
sources of emissions described above were approved by the EPA into the
Sandpoint PM10 SIP, and are both permanent and Federally-
enforceable (67 FR 43006). However, Idaho's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal
included a request to remove the three Tier II operating permits from
the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The EPA is proposing to approve the
State's request to remove the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint
operating permit from the SIP because the facility has ceased
operations and has been dismantled. The EPA is proposing to disapprove
the State's request to remove the two other operating permits (Lake
Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt) because the submittal did
not include a demonstration that removal of the two permits would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.
This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent the State from
submitting a subsequent SIP revision to remove the two Tier II
operating permits with the required demonstration. Because the
industrial source controls relied upon to demonstrate attainment remain
in place for those sources that have not been permanently shut down,
the State still meets the qualification criteria under the LMP Option
Memo.
    As described above, the Sandpoint NAA meets the qualification
criteria set forth in the LMP Option Memo, and therefore qualifies for
a LMP. The LMP Option Memo also indicates that once a State submits a
LMP and it is in effect, the State will be expected to determine, on an
annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being met. If the State
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take
action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for
the LMP. One possible approach the State could take is to implement
contingency measures. Section V. I. provides a description of
contingency provisions submitted as part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP
submittal. In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State commits to
evaluate, on an annual basis, the LMP criteria for the Sandpoint NAA.
    As a result of the above analysis, the EPA is proposing to approve
the LMP for the Sandpoint NAA and the State's request to redesignate
the Sandpoint NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.

G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the state's approved attainment
plan should include an emissions inventory which can be used to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability
requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the
inventory if necessary.
    The State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal includes an emissions
inventory completed in 2006, with a base year of 1999. The State
determined that using 1999 as a base year in the inventory would be
representative of the first five years of clean data (i.e., having no
violations of the PM10 NAAQS). The Sandpoint NAA LMP
submittal states that since 1999, the only major stationary source in
the Sandpoint NAA has ceased operation and has been dismantled. The
submittal also provides ambient monitoring data to analyze population
growth as it relates to particulate matter concentrations. Based on
this data, the State has concluded that population growth is not
interfering with improvements in particulate matter ambient air
quality. The State concludes that the 1999 emissions inventory is
representative of emissions during the five year period (1996-2001)
associated with air quality data demonstrating attainment, and that a
more current inventory would not find higher total emissions rates than
those estimated for 1999. The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal meets the EPA
guidance, as described above, for purposes of an attainment emissions
inventory.

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-Approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58?

    PM10 monitoring was established in the Sandpoint area in
1985. The monitoring network was developed and has been maintained in
accordance with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58,
and in consultation with EPA Region 10. The EPA most recently approved
the State's air monitoring plan on October 25, 2012. In the Sandpoint
NAA LMP submittal, the State states that it will continue to operate
its monitoring network to meet the EPA requirements at 40 CFR part 58.

I. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency
provisions?

    CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the
area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option Memo and the
Calcagni Memo, these contingency provisions are considered to be an
enforceable part of the Federally-approved SIP. The maintenance plan
should clearly identify the provisions to be adopted, a schedule and
procedures for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit
for action by the state. The maintenance plan should identify the
events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a
contingency provision, the contingency provision that would be adopted
and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which
the state would adopt and implement the provision. The LMP Option Memo
and Calcagni Memo state that the EPA will determine the adequacy of a
contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, it must require

that the State will implement all measures contained in the CAA part D
nonattainment plan for the area prior to redesignation.
    In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State has included
maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to
meet the PM10 NAAQS. The primary contingency provision is
the Episodic Curtailment Program in Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 which
restricts and controls burning activities to reduce particulate matter
emissions. Ordinance 965 has been strengthened by the City of Sandpoint
to protect both the PM10 NAAQS and the PM2.5
NAAQS. The ordinance specifies ``triggers'' for implementing
provisions, based on forecasted PM10 and PM2.5
levels. The Sandpoint NAA LMP also references Idaho regulations
previously approved into the SIP which provide the State with broad
authority to require or revise a permit of any stationary source, at
any time, should it be determined that emission rate reductions are
necessary to attain or maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
    The contingency provisions submitted by the State have been
adopted, are currently being implemented in the Sandpoint area, and
contain triggers based on forecasted PM10 levels for
implementing specific provisions to reduce particulate matter emissions
from home wood heating. Therefore, the EPA believes the contingency
provisions submitted in the Sandpoint NAA LMP are adequate to meet CAA
section 175A requirements.

J. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with
maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option are not subject to the
budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must
document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    Upon approval of the Sandpoint NAA LMP, the Sandpoint area is
exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation
conformity criteria mentioned above.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and
documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state air
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity.

VI. Revisions to Sandpoint PM10 SIP

    In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State requested that the
EPA approve revisions to the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The State
requested approval of revisions to the Sandpoint City Ordinance 965
which regulates residential wood burning to protect both the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. The revision aligns the
ordinance with the EPA Air Quality Index public advisory levels,
establishes triggers for burn curtailment based on forecasted levels of
PM10 and PM2.5, adopts Federal standards of
performance for new residential wood heaters, and includes a violation
and penalty provision. The EPA is proposing to approve the revised
Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP
because it strengthens the SIP.
    In addition, the State requested that the EPA remove three Tier II
operating permits (Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint, Lake Pre-
Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt) from the Sandpoint
PM10 SIP, originally approved on June 26, 2002 (67 FR
43006). The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal asserts that the State did not
submit these operating permits as part of the attainment demonstration
and that the EPA, without a request from the State, approved portions
of the permits into the SIP.
    As a result of the State's request, the EPA reviewed the
administrative record of the Sandpoint PM10 SIP approval
action. The State's Sandpoint PM10 SIP submittal included an
attainment demonstration that relied on industrial source emission
reductions (See 67 FR 43006, June 26, 2002). As noted in the EPA's June
26, 2002, approval, the State chose to establish the necessary
PM10 industrial source controls through the State's Tier II
Operating Permit Program. The administrative record for the Sandpoint
PM10 SIP included a letter from the Idaho DEQ to the EPA
indicating which portions of the operating permits for the specific
sources were appropriate to approve into the Sandpoint PM10
SIP (IDEQ Letter PM10 Industrial Source Controls, May 16,
2002). The EPA approved portions of the three operating permits
containing the source controls into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP
to meet the CAA requirement that emission reductions be both permanent
and Federally-enforceable (40 CFR 52.670(c)). A footnote to 40 CFR
52.670(c) explains that ``EPA does not have the authority to remove
these source-specific requirements in the absence of a demonstration
that their removal would not interfere with attainment or

maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant
deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment.'' The
footnote further explains that the ``Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA
as a SIP revision.''
    At this time, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's request
to remove the source operating permit for Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation--Sandpoint because the facility has ceased operations and
has been dismantled. Removing the permit for the permanently shut down
facility from the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the PM10 NAAQS. The facility report from the EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online Web site is provided in the
docket for this action (Louisiana-Pacific Corporation -Sandpoint
Facility Report). The EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's
request to remove the two operating permits for Lake Pre-Mix and
Interstate Concrete and Asphalt from the Sandpoint PM10 SIP
because the submittal did not include a demonstration that the removal
of the permits would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS, and because removal of the permits would disqualify the
State from the LMP option and require the submittal of a full
maintenance plan. As previously noted, the EPA's partial disapproval
does not prevent the State from providing the demonstration required to
remove the two permits from the SIP in the future.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval will be simultaneously
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place.
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP will be in place and
no further submittal will be required from the State to address the
partial disapproval.

VII. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the
Sandpoint NAA LMP submitted by the State and to approve the State's
request to redesignate this area to attainment for the PM10
NAAQS. The State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal included a request to
approve revisions to the control measures included in the
PM10 attainment SIP for the Sandpoint NAA. The EPA is
proposing to approve the revised Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 for
control of residential burning because it strengthens the SIP. The EPA
is also proposing to approve the State's request to remove the
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit control
measure from the SIP because the facility has ceased operations and has
been dismantled. However, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the
State's request to remove the operating permits for two other sources
because these sources are still in operation and the State did not
provide a demonstration that removal of the two permits would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, the
removal of controls that were relied on to demonstrate attainment would
disqualify the Sandpoint NAA for LMP eligibility and require that the
State submit a full maintenance plan. Because the State submitted the
Sandpoint NAA LMP intending to qualify for the LMP option, and did not
submit a full maintenance plan, we are proposing to disapprove the
separable portion of the submittal that is not consistent with the LMP
qualifying criteria. This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent
the State from submitting a request for approval of a SIP revision
demonstrating that the removal of the two operating permits does not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval would be simultaneously
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place.
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP would be in place and
no further submittal would be required from the State to address the
partial disapproval.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-02233 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25851-25852]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1813-000]

Yellow Pine Energy Center I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Yellow Pine Energy Center I, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 25, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal

Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity
to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet
through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09936 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12585-12586]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0014; OMB No. 1660-0016]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program
Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a
reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information
collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer
for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Senior Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address [email protected] or
Brian Koper, Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
administers the NFIP and maintains the maps that depict flood hazard
information. In 44 CFR 65.3, communities are required to submit
technical information concerning flood hazards and plans to avoid
potential flood hazards when physical changes occur. In 44 CFR 65.4,
communities are provided the right to submit technical information when
inconsistencies on maps are identified. In order to revise the Base (l-
percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs), and floodways presented on the NFIP maps, a community
must submit scientific or technical data demonstrating the need for a
revision. The NFIP regulations cited in 44 CFR part 65 outline the data
that must be submitted for these requests. This collection serves to
provide a standard format for the general information requirements
outlined in the NFIP regulations, and helps establish an organized
package of the data needed to revise NFIP maps. This information
collection expired on May 31, 2017. FEMA is requesting a reinstatement,
with change, of a previously approved information collection for which
approval has expired.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 29, 2017 at 82 FR 61787 with a 60 day
public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this
notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information
collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for
review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps:
Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs.
    Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
    OMB Number: 1660-0016.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-27, Overview and
Concurrence Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27A, Riverine Hydrology and
Hydraulics Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27B, Riverine Structures Form; FEMA
Form 086-0-27C, Coastal Analysis Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27D, Coastal
Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27E, Alluvial Fan Flooding Form.
    Abstract: The forms in this information collection are used to
determine if the collected data will result in the modification of a
BFE, a SFHA, or a floodway. Once the information is collected, it is
submitted to FEMA for review and is subsequently included on the NFIP
maps. Using these maps, lenders will determine the application of the
mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and insurance agents
will determine actuarial flood insurance rates. The maps are also used
by communities participating in the NFIP to establish floodplain
management requirements.
    Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government and Business or
Other for-Profit Institutes.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,291.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,291.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,107.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,084,308.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs:
$22,010,000.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $24,559.06.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
William H. Holzerland,
Senior Director of Information Management, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-05769 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P