[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6667-6669]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79782; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Cabinet Trading Pilot Program

January 12, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been 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 Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program in Phlx Rule
1059, Accommodation Transactions, to allow cabinet trading to take
place below $1 per option contract under specified circumstances (the
``pilot program'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

NASDAQ PHLX Rules

* * * * *

Options Rules

* * * * *

Rule 1059. Accommodation Transactions

    (a)-(b) No change.

   Commentary:

    .01 No change.
    .02 Limit Orders Priced Below $1: Limit orders with a price of at
least $0 but less than $1 per option contract may trade under the terms
and conditions in Rule 1059 above in each series of option contracts
open for trading on the Exchange, except that:
    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Unless otherwise extended, the effectiveness of the Commentary
.02 terminates January 5, [2017] 2018, or, upon permanent approval of
these procedures by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whichever
occurs first.
* * * * *

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program in Commentary .02
of Exchange Rule 1059, Accommodation Transactions, which sets forth
specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades, to allow the
Commission adequate time to consider permanently allowing transactions
to take place on the Exchange in open outcry at a price of at least $0
but less than $1 per option

contract.\3\ Prior to the pilot program, Rule 1059 required that all
orders placed in the cabinet were assigned priority based upon the
sequence in which such orders were received by the specialist. All
closing bids and offers would be submitted to the specialist in
writing, and the specialist effected all closing cabinet transactions
by matching such orders placed with him. Bids or offers on orders to
open for the accounts of customer, firm, specialists and Registered
Options Traders (``ROTs'') could be made at $1 per option contract, but
such orders could not be placed in and must yield to all orders in the
cabinet. Specialists effected all cabinet transactions by matching
closing purchase or sale orders which were placed in the cabinet or,
provided there was no matching closing purchase or sale order in the
cabinet, by matching a closing purchase or sale order in the cabinet
with an opening purchase or sale order.\4\ All cabinet transactions
were reported to the Exchange following the close of each business
day.\5\ Any (i) member, (ii) member organization, or (iii) other person
who was a non-member broker or dealer and who directly or indirectly
controlled, was controlled by, or was under common control with, a
member or member organization (any such other person being referred to
as an affiliated person) could effect any transaction as principal in
the over-the-counter market in any class of option contracts listed on
the Exchange for a premium not in excess of $1.00 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cabinet or accommodation trading of option contracts is
intended to accommodate persons wishing to effect closing
transactions in those series of options dealt in on the Exchange for
which there is no auction market.
    \4\ Specialists and ROTs are not subject to the requirements of
Rule 1014 in respect of orders placed pursuant to this Rule. Also,
the provisions of Rule 1033(b) and (c), Rule 1034 and Rule 1038 do
not apply to orders placed in the cabinet. Cabinet transactions are
not reported on the ticker.
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2010, the Exchange filed an immediately effective
proposal that established the pilot program being extended by this
filing. The pilot program allowed transactions to take place in open
outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract
until June 1, 2011.\6\ These lower priced transactions are traded
pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except
that pursuant to the pilot program (i) bids and offers for opening
transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in
order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing
positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for trading
in options participating in the Penny Pilot Program.\7\ On May 20,
2011, the Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal that
extended the pilot program until December 1, 2011 to consider whether
to seek permanent approval of the temporary procedure.\8\ On November
16, 2011, the Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal that
extended the pilot program until June 1, 2012.\9\ On May 29, 2012, the
Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal that extended the
pilot program until December 1, 2012.\10\ On November 1, 2012, the
Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal that extended the
pilot program until June 1, 2013.\11\ On May 8, 2013, the Exchange
filed an immediately effective proposal that extended the pilot program
until January 5, 2014.\12\ On December 4, 2013, the Exchange filed an
immediately effective proposal that extended the pilot program until
January 5, 2015.\13\ On January 2, 2015, the Exchange filed an
immediately effective proposal that extended the pilot program until
January 5, 2016.\14\ On December 9, 2015, the Exchange filed an
immediately effective proposal that extended the pilot program until
January 5, 2017.\15\ The Exchange now proposes an extension of the
pilot program to allow additional time to consider its effects while
the pilot program continues uninterrupted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Phlx Rule 1059, Commentary .02; See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 63626 (December 30, 2010), 76 FR 812 (January 6, 2011)
(SR-Phlx-2010-185).
    \7\ Prior to the pilot, the $1 cabinet trading procedures were
limited to options classes traded in $0.05 or $0.10 standard
increments. The $1 cabinet trading procedures were not available in
Penny Pilot Program classes because in those classes, an option
series could trade in a standard increment as low as $0.01 per share
(or $1.00 per option contract with a 100 share multiplier). The
pilot allows trading below $0.01 per share (or $1.00 per option
contract with a 100 share multiplier) in all classes, including
those classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64571 (May 31,
2011), 76 FR 32385 (June 6, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-72).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65852 (November 30,
2011), 76 FR 76212 (December 6, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-156).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67106 (June 4,
2012), 77 FR 34108 (June 8, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-74).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68201 (November 9,
2012), 77 FR 68871 (November 16, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-131).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69583 (May 15,
2013), 78 FR 30380 (May 22, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-53).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71096 (December 17,
2013), 78 FR 77538 (December 23, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-120).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74012 (January 7,
2015), 80 FR 1688 (January 13, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-03).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76671 (December 16,
2015), 80 FR 79642 (December 22, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that allowing a price of at least $0 but less
than $1 will continue to better accommodate the closing of options
positions in series that are worthless or not actively traded,
particularly due to recent market conditions which have resulted in a
significant number of series being out-of-the-money. For example, a
market participant might have a long position in a call series with a
strike price of $100 and the underlying stock might now be trading at
$30. In such an instance, there might not otherwise be a market for
that person to close-out its position even at the $1 cabinet price
(e.g., the series might be quoted no bid).
    The Exchange hereby seeks to extend the pilot period for such $1
cabinet trading until January 5, 2018. The Exchange seeks this
extension to allow the procedures to continue without interruption.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that allowing for liquidations at a price less
than $1 per option contract pursuant to the pilot program will better
facilitate the closing of options positions that are worthless or not
actively trading, especially in Penny Pilot issues where cabinet trades
are not otherwise permitted. The Exchange believes the extension is of
sufficient length to allow the Commission to assess the impact of the
Exchange's authority to allow transactions to take place in open outcry
at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option in accordance
with its attendant obligations and conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposal does
not raise any issues of intra-market competition because it applies to
all options participants in the same manner.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \21\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested a waiver
of the 30-day operative delay so that the pilot program may continue
without interruption. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the pilot to continue
uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that
could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot and allowing
members to continue to benefit from the program. Therefore, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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 Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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 Number SR-Phlx-2017-01 and should be
submitted on or before February 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01153 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44318-44320]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20163]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152; FRL-9967-99-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submittal from
the State of Delaware pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new
or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited
to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. Delaware made a SIP submittal to address the
infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. This action approves portions of this
submittal pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. EPA is not taking any
action on the portion of the submittal that addresses interstate
transport of emissions and intends to take separate action later.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25211), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed
approval of portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP revision which
address for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS the following
infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA
will take separate action, at a future date, on the remaining portion
of the December 14, 2015 SIP revision that addresses requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the proposed rulemaking
action did not include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which
pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I
of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the
3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be
addressed in a separate process if necessary.
    Because the technical support document (TSD) was erroneously
omitted from the docket for this rulemaking at the time EPA published
the NPR on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25211), EPA published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) extending the comment period on
June 22, 2017 to allow further opportunity for public comment on our
proposed approval of portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP
revision addressing infrastructure requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. 82 FR 28432.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    EPA reviewed the December 14, 2015 SIP submittal from Delaware and
determined that it addressed for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS the
following infrastructure elements in section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M) of the CAA. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for
approving Delaware's submittal may be found in the TSD for this
rulemaking action, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152.
    Although Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP submission also contained
provisions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA did
not propose any action on the portion of the submittal pertaining to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the interstate transport of
emissions. EPA intends to take later separate action on this portion of
Delaware's submittal.
    Other specific requirements of Delaware's submittal for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure requirements and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. EPA received one comment which is addressed below.

III. Public Comment and EPA's Response

    EPA received a comment in response to the June 1, 2017 NPR. The
commenter noted that the TSD was not available online and requested a
restart of the comment period. Additionally, the commenter expressed
support for EPA and concerns about the removal of environmental
regulations.
    Response: On June 22, 2017, EPA made the TSD available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152. In
our June 22, 2017 SNPR, EPA subsequently extended the comment period.
82 FR 28432. While EPA appreciates the supportive comments and
expression of concern for environmental regulations in general, these
comments are not germane to this rulemaking and do not identify any
specific actions or provisions that EPA should address differently.
Therefore, EPA does not provide further response.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP
revision that address the following elements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Delaware's SIP
revision

addressing section 110(a)(2)(A-C), (D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), (E-H), and
(J-M) provides the basic program elements specified in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will take later separate action on the
portion of the SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(interstate transport of emissions) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This final rulemaking action does not include action on section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not
required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process if
necessary.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action to approve portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015
SIP revision for section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 8, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS'' after the entry ``Infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport.'' The added text
reads as follows:

Sec.  52.420   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide..........      12/14/2015  9/22/2017, [Insert   This action
 Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5                                         Federal Register     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20163 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan at the 2014  -  29th Annual SME Regional Phosphate Conference SUMMARY:         REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN to participants at the 2014  -  29th Annual  SME Regional Phosphate Conference on October 8, 2014, in Lakeland, Florida.  The Clean Power Plan  for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.   ATTENDEES:

EPA Beverly Banister/EPA R4

External Stakeholders Karen Mort/Phoslab Environmental Services Approximately 60 participants

ATTACHMENT


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59338-59344]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24697]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100; FRL-9471-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana--Air Quality,
Subchapter 7, Exclusion for De Minimis Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Montana on June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. The revisions contain new
and amended rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, and Operation
of Air Contaminant Sources) that pertain to the issuance of Montana air
quality permits, in addition to other minor administrative changes to
the Administrative Rules of Montana. The intended effect of this action
is to propose to approve the rules that are approvable and to propose
to disapprove the rules that are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA.) This action is being taken under section 110 and 112 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0100, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0100. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What Authorities Apply to EPA's Proposed Action
IV. EPA's Analysis and Proposed Actions on SIP Revisions
V. Summary of Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a

copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    In response to Montana legislation adopted in 1995, (House Joint
Resolution No. 22, Montana's June 25, 2010 SIP Submittal Package, Tab
15, Attachment 2), on August 9, 1996, the Montana Board of
Environmental Review (Board) adopted the initial de minimis rules,
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 16.8.1102, 16.8.1113 and
16.8.1121 as part of Montana's air quality preconstruction permit
program rules. These rules created an exemption from the requirement to
obtain an air quality permit modification for certain changes at a
permitted facility that did not increase the facility's potential
emissions of an air pollutant by more than 15 tons per year, when
conditions specified in the rule were met. On December 9, 1996, the
Board recodified its rules, including the following recodification of
the de minimis rules: ARM 16.8.1102 became 17.8.705; 16.8.1113 became
17.8.733 and 16.8.1121 became 17.8.708. On May 14, 1999, the Board
revised ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733 and repealed 17.8.708. The Governor
of Montana submitted the Board's August 9, 1996 and May 14, 1999
rulemaking actions to EPA on August 26, 1999, for inclusion in the SIP.
On December 6, 2002, the Board repealed ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733,
which the Board incorporated into a new rule, ARM 17.8.745, the State's
current de minimis rule. On May 28, 2003, the Governor submitted the
new rule to EPA for inclusion in the SIP and rescinded the previous
submissions of ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733.
    During the State's 1996 and 1999 rulemaking process we expressed
concerns with the de minimis level specified in the earlier versions of
the regulation we are proposing action on today (see letters from EPA
to the State of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 1999 and October
9, 2002 in the docket). ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption from the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than 15 tons
per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met. Since this
new rule reduced the stringency of the current SIP approved
regulations, EPA indicated that the State must provide an analysis
showing that the new rule will not interfere with compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA
states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further
progress (RFP), as defined in section 171 of the CAA, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana's May 28, 2003 submittal did
not provide any analysis or demonstration that the new rule (ARM
17.8.745) meets these requirements. In EPA's final July 8, 2011
rulemaking (76 FR 40237) which approved revisions to ARM 17.8.7, no
action was taken on Montana's de minimis provision in ARM 17.8.745.
Since EPA took no action on ARM 17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we
took no action on all references to ARM 17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7.
    On June 25, 2010, the Governor of Montana submitted the Board's May
14, 2010 rulemaking action to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. This
revision request for ARM 17.8.745, which supercedes the State's May 28,
2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, created an exemption from the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than five
tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met. In this
action EPA proposes to act on two submittals: (1) The May 28, 2003 SIP
revision request; and (2) the June 25, 2010 SIP revision request, which
amended the 2003 submittal.
    The State's May 28, 2003 submittal also included ARM 17.8.743,
which was a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes those sources that are
required to obtain a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1)
provides that any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has
the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne
pollutant, except lead,\1\ must obtain a Montana air quality permit
except as provided in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before
constructing, installing, modifying or operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b)
also requires asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral
screens that have the potential to emit more than 15 tons per year of
any airborne pollutant, other than lead, to obtain a Montana air
quality permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne lead must
obtain a Montana air quality permit if they are new and emit greater
than five tons per year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing
facility or emitting unit and a modification results in an increase
of airborne lead by an amount greater than 0.6 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also contains EPA's proposed action on Montana rules
relating to the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers. In our July 8, 2011 rulemaking, EPA approved of all
of new section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the phrase ``asphalt
concrete plants and mineral crushers'' where the de minimis permitting
threshold for those sources was changed from five tons per year to 15
tons per year. During the State's rulemaking process we expressed
concerns with the new permit threshold for asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter from EPA to the State of
Montana in the docket.) Since for asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers this revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces the stringency of
the current SIP approved regulations, which has a threshold of 5 tons,
we stated that Montana must provide an analysis showing that this new
rule will not interfere with compliance with the NAAQS or PSD
increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a
SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or reasonable further progress, as defined in
Section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Montana did not provide any analysis or

demonstration that the increased permit threshold, from five tons per
year to 15 tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers meets these criteria. At the request of the State, we took no
action on the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers'' in
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR 40237. EPA is proposing action on the May
28, 2003, SIP revision request for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action.

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA's Proposed Action

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states: Each revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this Act.
    The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is
considered as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.''
A demonstration is necessary to show that this revision will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those
for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other
requirement of the Act.
    The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a minor
New Source Review (NSR) program in their SIP to regulate modifications
and new construction of stationary sources within the area as necessary
to assure the NAAQS are achieved. EPA's implementing regulations at 40
CFR 51.160-164 are intended to ensure that new source growth is
consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 51.160(e) requires
states to identify types and sizes of facilities which will be subject
to review under their minor NSR program. For sources identified under
40 CFR 51.160(e), section 51.160(a) requires that the SIP include
legally enforceable procedures that enable a state or local agency to
determine whether construction or modification of a facility, building,
structure or installation, or combination of these will result in a
violation of applicable portions of the control strategy; or
interference with attainment or maintenance of a national standard in
the state in which the proposed source (or modification) is located or
in a neighboring state. Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically
precludes states from changing the requirements of the SIP except
through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved
by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of the CAA and
the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l);
40 CFR 51.104.
    EPA recognizes that, under the applicable Federal regulations,
states have broad discretion to determine the scope of their minor NSR
programs as needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The states have
significant discretion to tailor minor NSR requirements that are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51. States may also
provide a rationale for why the rules are at least as stringent as the
40 CFR part 51 requirements where the revisions are different from
those in 40 CFR part 51. For example, states may exempt from minor new
source review certain categories of changes based on de minimis or
administrative necessity grounds in accordance with the criteria set
out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-361 (D.C. Cir.
1979). De minimis sources are presumed not to have an impact and their
emissions would not prevent or interfere with attainment of the NAAQS,
even within nonattainment areas.
    Since there are no ambient air quality standards for air toxics,
the area's compliance with any applicable maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards, as well as any Federal mobile source
control requirements under CAA sections 112 or 202(l) would constitute
an acceptable demonstration of noninterference for air toxics.
    Section 110(l) does not require a demonstration of noninterference
for changes to Federal requirements that are not included in the SIP. A
revision to the SIP, however, cannot interfere with any federally
mandated program such as a MACT standard (or related section 112
requirements) or Reid Vapor Pressure.
    The following is a table of the NAAQS that were in place at the
time Montana submitted its new section ARM 17.8.745 and all references
to ARM 17.8.745 for Federal approval on May 23, 2003, as well as the
current NAAQS levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NAAQS level as of
        Criteria pollutant                   2003           Current NAAQS level          Date of revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Monoxide...................  35 ppm 1-hr Average..  35 ppm 1-hr Average..  August 31, 2011.
                                    9 ppm 8-hr Average...  9 ppm 8-hr Average...
Lead..............................  1.5 ug/m3 Quarterly    0.15 ug/m3 Rolling 3-  Nov. 12, 2008.
                                     Average.               month Average.
Nitrogen Dioxide..................  0.53 ppm Annual Mean.  0.53 ppm Annual Mean.  Feb. 9, 2010.
                                                           100 ppb 1-hour Avg...
Particulate Matter (PM10).........  150 ug/m3 24-hr Avg..  150 ug/m3 24-hr Avg..  Oct. 17, 2006.
                                    50 ug/m3 Annual Mean.
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)........  65 ug/m3 24-hr Avg...  35 ug/m3 24-hr Avg...  Oct. 17, 2006.
                                    15 ug/m3 Annual Mean.  15 ug/m3 Annual Mean.
Ozone.............................  0.12 ppm 1-hour Avg..  0.075 ppm 8-hour Avg.  Mar. 27, 2008.
                                    0.08 ppm 8-hour Avg..
Sulfur Dioxide, Primary Standard..  0.14 ppm 24-hour Avg.  75 ppb 1-hour Average  June 22, 2010.
                                    0.030 ppm Annual Mean
Sulfur Dioxide, Secondary Standard  0.5 ppm 3-hour Avg...  0.5 ppm 3-hour Avg...  May 22, 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposal EPA is using indicators such as ambient air
quality analysis, air quality trends including air monitoring and air
modeling and findings from past EPA-approved rules and attainment
demonstrations to show noninterference. In this proposal we are taking
into consideration the nature of the permitting requirement, its
potential impact on the air quality in the area and the air quality of
the area in which the permitting requirements apply.
    CAA Section 193, also referred to as the ``General Savings Clause''
requires that ``[n]o control requirement in effect or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before
November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any
air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner
unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission
reduction of such air pollutant.'' This proposed rulemaking and
associated Technical Support Document (TSD) demonstrates that the
requirements of CAA Section

193 have been met through consistent emission reductions in
nonattainment areas compared to the current EPA approved SIP.

IV. EPA's Analysis and Proposed Actions on SIP Revisions

    In this proposed rulemaking, we are proposing to approve new
section ARM 17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 25, 2010. We are also
proposing to approve all references to ARM 17.8.745, submitted by
Montana on May 28, 2003. Specifically, the following phrases in
17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) ``except when a permit is not
required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2) ``except as provided in ARM
17.8.745'', the phrase ``and 17.8.745'' in ARM 17.8.743(1) and the
phrase ``the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a
de minimis change not requiring a permit in ARM 17.8.864(1)(b). We are
also proposing to disapprove the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted by Montana on May
28, 2003.

ARM 17.8.745

    De minimis Exemptions from minor NSR. The Montana permit to
construct rules exempt non-major sources from permitting requirements
if they meet all of several criteria. These criteria are:
    (1) Any construction or changed conditions of operation at a
facility that would violate any condition in the facility's existing
Montana air quality permit or any applicable rule contained in this
chapter is prohibited, except as allowed in (2);
    (2) any construction or changed conditions of operation at a
facility that would qualify as a major modification of a major
stationary source under subchapters 8, 9, or 10 of this chapter;
    (3) any construction or changed conditions of operation at a
facility that would affect the plume rise or dispersion characteristics
of the emissions in a manner that would cause or contribute to a
violation of an ambient air quality standard or an ambient air
increment, as defined in ARM 17.8.804;
    (4) any construction or improvement project with a potential to
emit more than 5 tons per year may not be artificially split into
smaller projects to avoid permitting under this subchapter; and
    (5) emission reductions obtained through offsetting within a
facility are not included when determining the potential emission
increase from construction or changed conditions of operation, unless
such reductions are made federally enforceable.
    ARM 17.8.745(1)(b) states that an owner or operator shall notify
the department for specific changes, with exceptions listed in ARM
17.8.745(1)(c); ARM 17.8.745(1)(d) includes the information the owner
or operator must submit to the department if a notice is required under
ARM 17.8.745(1)(b); ARM 17.8.745(1)(e) states that the notice
requirements under ARM 17.8.745(1)(d) shall not supercede any
requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 (New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants.)
    We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the Federal regulations under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160, including section 51.160(b),
which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent
construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP
control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS.
    We also evaluated the new rules using CAA section 110(l). Section
110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, EPA
will approve a SIP revision only after a state has demonstrated that
such a revision will not interfere (``noninterference'') with
attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress (ROP), RFP or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
    EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case
basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of
noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, ROP, RFP or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this instance, EPA
asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the approval of new
section ARM 17.8.745 would not violate section 110(l) of the CAA (see
docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100); this is also referred to as a
``demonstration of noninterference'' with attainment and maintenance
under CAA section 110(l). In addition to the State's demonstration, EPA
conducted its own analysis utilizing SIP-approved attainment plans,
past rulemakings, stipulations, consent decrees, air modeling data and
air monitoring data. The scope and rigor of the demonstration of
noninterference conducted in this notice is appropriate given the air
quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision
on air quality and the pollutants affected.
    We interpret section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA
and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. The scope and rigor of an adequate section 110(l)
demonstration of noninterference depends on the air quality status of
the area, the potential impact of the revision on air quality, the
pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable CAA
requirements.
    As described above, the changes to ARM 17.8.745 (the de minimis
rule) that would occur with EPA approval of this SIP revision submittal
affect the entire State of Montana for all criteria pollutants, with
the exception of lead. ARM 17.8.743(1)(a) already limits a modification
to an existing facility or emitting unit that results in an increase in
the facility or emitting unit's potential to emit airborne lead by an
amount greater than 0.6 tons per year. Therefore, EPA needs to review
the effect of the exemption statewide for all criteria pollutants,
except lead, before we can determine whether we can approve the SIP
revisions under CAA section 110(l).
    The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has been
implementing the de minimis rule for more than 13 years as a State
approved rule. This State approved rule established a 15 tons per year
de minimis threshold for requiring a Montana air quality permit when a
facility is modified. As stated earlier in this notice, Montana's June
25, 2010 SIP revision request revises the federally approved SIP de
minimis level from zero to a five tons per year threshold. MDEQ
submitted a statewide demonstration of noninterference, which includes
an air quality analysis, showing the effects of the de minimis rule on
each criteria pollutant related to SIP control strategies or
interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as well as
all other related requirements of the CAA. The air quality analysis
displayed past air quality trends and provided information regarding
future implications of the de minimis rule (predictive analysis). We
find that MDEQ used reasonable methods and appropriate data in
estimating the emissions effects of the new exemption. The following is
a summary of Montana's air quality for criteria pollutants:
1. Ozone
    A review of Montana's past monitoring data show no violations of
the ozone NAAQS standard since 2001 (See TSD, pages 4-5.) Montana
currently has no ozone nonattainment areas; and consequently, no

nonattainment area control plans with respect to ozone. On November 27,
2008 Montana submitted to EPA assurances certifying Montana's SIP was
adequate for addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS revision (see docket). On
July 22, 2011 EPA partially approved ``Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Montana''.
    In March 2008, EPA again promulgated revisions to the NAAQS for
ozone. The revision lowered the ambient standards from the previous
level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm as averaged over an
eight-hour period. In addition, EPA's analysis to support the 2008
ozone NAAQS revision consistent with EPA's modeling of counties
predicted to violate the new ozone standard in future years does not
include any Montana counties. Using 2004-2006 data, EPA conducted a
national scale air quality modeling analysis to estimate future year
attainment/nonattainment for ozone.
    Rural ozone monitoring currently occurs in Glacier National Park
and near Sidney in eastern Montana. Glacier National Park data from
2001-2008 shows continued attainment with the revised ozone standard
(See TSD, Figures 1-3.) The Sidney monitor was located in proximity to
oil and gas industry development activities. Monitoring began at the
Sidney site in October, 2008, and initial data shows attainment with
the revised 8 hour ozone standard.
    Data from Montana's past monitoring in the Billings area (the area
in which conditions conducive to ozone formation are most likely to
occur) does not show a violation of the revised 2008 NAAQS. Montana
conducted three years of ozone monitoring (June-September, 2007-2010)
in the Billings area (Shepherd Bard site) and two years of ozone season
monitoring in the Missoula area (Frenchtown site) (See TSD, Figures 2-
3.) Based on factors including, but not limited to, population density,
area-wide vehicle miles traveled, and existing industrial activity
(including oil and gas industry development), Montana determined these
locations represent the areas with the highest potential for ozone
formation. The design value for the Billings area was determined during
2005-2007 to be 0.059 ppm or 78.7% of the revised ozone NAAQS. Data
from Missoula indicated an even lower design value.
    Based on future estimates and projections of the number of de
minimis notices (See TSD pages 36-41) and the minimal likely effect of
the de minimis rule on VOC and NOX emissions and monitoring
data that show the area has attained the 8-hour ozone and 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, we propose to find that approving the de minimus rule would not
interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State of
Montana. Montana has been implementing the de minimis level of 15 tons
since 1998 as a state-approved rule, and ozone levels have remained
relatively stable. EPA proposes to find that raising the federally
enforceable de minimis level from zero to five tons will not interfere
with compliance with the ozone NAAQS standards.
2. Carbon Monoxide
    The town of Billings, located in Yellowstone County, was designated
nonattainment for the CO 8-hour NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 9010) as
a result of the 1977 CAA. Control plans were developed to bring
Billings back into compliance following the nonattainment designation.
The CO violation was attributed primarily to motor vehicle emissions
(See TSD, pages 6 and 7.)
    The town of Missoula, in Missoula County, was designated as a
nonattainment area for CO in 1978 because of repeated violations of the
CO 8-hour NAAQS in 1977 and early 1978. Most of the problem focused on
congested intersections and residential wood burning. Missoula took
steps to reduce ambient levels of CO, including intersection changes,
woodstove regulations, open burning regulations and the Federal motor
vehicle emission reduction program. However, Missoula continued to
violate the 8-hour CO NAAQS until 1992, when it was required to
implement an oxygenated fuels program. Since the program began,
Missoula has not recorded a violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (See TSD,
Figure 4.)
    Between 1990 and 2000, CO emissions in the Missoula area decreased
by 40%. The biggest reductions were from on-road motor vehicles and
woodstoves. In 2000, these sources represented 95% of the CO emissions
in the Missoula nonattainment area. The remaining sources, industry,
natural gas combustion and railroads were responsible for less than 5%
of CO emissions on a typical weekday (see 72 FR 46158; August 17,
2007).
    In 72 FR 46158, EPA approved a request submitted by the State of
Montana requesting to redesignate the Missoula ``moderate'' CO
nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. EPA also approved
the new CO maintenance plan, which was submitted on May 27, 2005 and
includes transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEB) for 2000, 2010, and 2020.
    The town of Great Falls, located in Cascade County, was designated
nonattainment for CO on September 9, 1980 (45 FR 59315). This
designation followed sixteen violations of the NAAQS 8-hour CO
standard. Following the nonattainment designation, control plans were
developed, but none were EPA approved. Great Falls was reevaluated in
September 1990, based on the 1990 CAA Amendments and the lack of
exceedances in the CO monitoring data for 1988 and 1989. On November 6,
1991 (56 FR 56799), Great Falls was listed as a ``not classified''
nonattainment area for CO. Great Falls was re-designated as attainment
on May 9, 2002 (67 FR 31143) (See TSD page 5 for more details and
Figure 5 for Great Falls CO monitoring data).
    A review of CO monitoring data state-wide from 2002-2008 shows
relatively constant levels of overall CO emissions and monitoring data
shows that ambient CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS (See TSD,
Figure 5). None of the maintenance plans rely on Title 17, Chapter 8,
subchapter 7 of the Montana Air Quality Program (MAQP) to attain and
maintain the NAAQS, and CO levels in all three maintenance areas have
fallen significantly over the years.
    Based on the minimal estimated increase in CO emissions due to the
de minimis rule (See TSD pages 6-9 for basis and data), the relatively
constant level of overall CO emissions, and monitoring data that shows
that ambient CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS, we propose to
find that approving the de minimis rule would not interfere with
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the State of Montana.
3. Particulate Matter (PM10)
    Based on the minimal estimated increase in PM emissions due to the
de minimis rule (See TSD pages 9-27), the relatively constant level of
overall PM10 emissions, and monitoring data that shows that
ambient PM10 levels remain below the PM10 NAAQS,
we propose to find that approving the de minimis rule would not
interfere with continued attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the
State of Montana. Montana does not have any areas with monitoring data
showing nonattainment for PM10. (For supplemental
information concerning PM10 monitoring data, refer to TSD,
pages 9-27.)
4. Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
    Monitoring results show that Montana is currently in attainment for
the 1997

and 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS (See TSD, Figures 16-18.) Libby,
Lincoln County, is Montana's sole administratively designated
PM2.5 nonattainment area (currently attaining the standard),
that violated the 1997 annual standard. Montana does not have any other
nonattainment areas for PM2.5.
    Based on the minimal estimated increase in PM2.5
emissions due to the de minimis rule (See TSD pages 27-30 for basis and
data), the relatively constant level of overall PM2.5
emissions, and monitoring data that shows that ambient PM2.5
levels remain below the 24-hour and annual NAAQS for both the 1997
standard and the 2006 standard, we propose to find that approving the
de minimis rule would not interfere with continued attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the State of Montana.
5. Sulfur Dioxide
    The Billings/Laurel Federal Implementation Plan (73 FR 21418), and
the portions of the Billings/Laurel SO2 Control Plan EPA
approved, remain valid and enforceable, regardless of the existence of
the de minimis rule. As such, we propose to find that approving the de
minimis rule would not interfere with continued attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the State of Montana (See TSD, pages 31-33 for
basis and data.) Montana does not have any other nonattainment areas
for SO2.
6. Nitrogen Dioxide
    Montana currently has no NO2 nonattainment areas; and
consequently, no nonattainment area control plans with respect to
NO2. Past monitoring of ambient NO2 reveals a
history of exceedingly low concentrations (See TSD, Figures 20-22.) No
discernable trend was observed during the monitoring period.
    MDEQ has installed monitoring equipment, including NO2
monitors, in response to the increase in oil and gas development in the
eastern part of the State and in anticipation of the recently proposed
revision to the NO2 NAAQS (See TSD, Figure 22.) EPA
strengthened the NO2 NAAQS in January 2010 by establishing a
new 1-hr standard at 100 ppb (represented by the 3-yr average of the
98th percentile from the annual distribution of daily max 1-hr
averages) and retained the previous annual standard of 53 ppb.
    EPA proposes to find that the de minimis rule will not interfere
with continued attainment of the NO2 NAAQS in the State of
Montana, even in areas with increased oil and gas development.

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)

    The May 28, 2003 SIP revision for ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) for asphalt
concrete plants and mineral crushers reduces the stringency of the
current SIP approved regulations. We commented that the State must
provide an analysis showing that this new rule will not interfere with
compliance with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA
states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further
progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Montana did not provide any analysis or
demonstration that the increased permit threshold for asphalt concrete
plants and mineral crushers, from 5 tons per year to 15 tons per year,
for any airborne pollutant, other than lead, regulated under Chapter 8
of the ARM meets these criteria.
    EPA has concerns about a modification size cutoff (15 tons per
year) that the State proposes as de minimis. Fifteen tons per year
represents the major modification significance level for one criteria
pollutant (PM10) and exceeds the significance level for
another criteria pollutant (PM2.5) as well as for several
non-criteria pollutants. It also exceeds the major source threshold for
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Because of these reasons, EPA
determines that the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in
the sense of having a trivial environmental effect. EPA has agreed in
several rulemaking actions that certain activities with emissions of 5
tons per year or less may be considered ``insignificant.'' However, EPA
never before denoted emissions increases as high as 15 tons per year as
de minimis. Since the State did not provide an analysis as to why
emission increases as high as 15 tons per year should be considered as
having a trivial environmental effect, EPA finds no basis for approving
this revision. Therefore, EPA lacks sufficient available information to
determine that the proposed SIP relaxation would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS, PSD increment, or any other requirement of the Act. If the State
submits a new SIP with the analysis, we would evaluate such an
analysis.

V. Summary of Proposed Actions

    Based on the above discussion, EPA proposes to find that the
addition of new rule ARM 17.8.745 would not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would
not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act (See TSD
for basis); and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l).
Therefore, we propose to approve ARM 17.8.745 as submitted on June 25,
2010 by the State of Montana.
    We are proposing to approve new section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we
are also proposing to approve all references to ARM 17.8.745. This
includes: The phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1)
``except when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2)
``except as provided in ARM 17.8.745'' and the phrase ``and 17.8.745''
in 17.8.743(1), submitted on May 28, 2003; and the phrase ``the
emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis
change not requiring a permit'' in 17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on
May 28, 2003.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants
and mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted on May 28, 2003.

VI. 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 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 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 EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds, Incorporation by reference.

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

    Dated: September 16, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-24697 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24820-24822]
[DOCID:fr06my10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8129]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2953.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Kentucky:
    Fleming County,                   210335  April 10, 1991,     May 20, 2010..........  May 20, 2010.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; February
                                               5, 1992, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Flemingsburg, City of,            210068  September 10,       ......do *............   do.
     Fleming County.                           1975, Emerg;
                                               September 18,
                                               1985, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Robertson County,                 210200  April 15, 1997,     ......do..............   do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; November
                                               1, 2008, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
Mississippi:
    Neshoba County,                   280276  April 23, 1979,     ......do..............   do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               15, 1989, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.
    Philadelphia, City of,            280120  November 2, 1974,   ......do..............   do.
     Neshoba County.                           Emerg; September
                                               29, 1986, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.

           Region VI

Arkansas:
    Barling, City of,                 050305  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   do.
     Sebastian County.                         September 20,
                                               2007, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.

    Fort Smith, City of,              055013  December 18, 1970,  ......do..............   do.
     Sebastian County.                         Emerg; August 27,
                                               1971, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Greenwood, City of,               050198  October 29, 1974,   ......do..............   do.
     Sebastian County.                         Emerg; April 15,
                                               1981, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Hartford, City of,                050200  March 12, 1975,     ......do..............   do.
     Sebastian County.                         Emerg; March 15,
                                               1982, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Lavaca, City of, Sebastian        050201  May 6, 1975,        ......do..............   do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 15,
                                               1982, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Mansfield, City of, Scott         050202  July 29, 1975,      ......do..............   do.
     and Sebastian Counties.                   Emerg; June 18,
                                               1987, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Midland, Town of,                 050203  January 22, 1976,   ......do..............   do.
     Sebastian County.                         Emerg; June 1,
                                               1987, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Sebastian County,                 050462  January 27, 1983,   ......do..............   do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; April 1,
                                               1988, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
Texas:
    Beeville, City of, Bee            480027  January 14, 1974,   ......do..............   do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January
                                               20, 1982, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.
    Nacogdoches, City of,             480497  January 16, 1975,   ......do..............   do.
     Nacogdoches County.                       Emerg; February
                                               18, 1981, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.

          Region VII
Missouri:
    Crawford County,                  290795  October 23, 1984,   ......do..............   do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 1,
                                               1987, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Leasburg, Village of,             290561  March 7, 1977,      ......do..............   do.
     Crawford County.                          Emerg; August 24,
                                               1984, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Steelville, City of,              290114  October 15, 1971,   ......do..............   do.
     Crawford County.                          Emerg; February
                                               13, 1976, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.
    Crane, City of, Stone             290430  November 9, 1976,   ......do..............   do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1980, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Kimberling City, City of,         290432  June 23, 1975,      ......do..............   do.
     Stone County.                             Emerg; April 15,
                                               1979, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
    Reeds Spring, City of,            290433  November 17, 1975,  ......do..............   do.
     Stone County.                             Emerg; September
                                               18, 1985, Reg;
                                               May 20, 2010,
                                               Susp.
    Stone County,                     290429  January 4, 1994,    ......do..............   do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; March 19,
                                               1997, Reg; May
                                               20, 2010, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* -do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg--Emergency; Reg--Regular; Susp--Suspension.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 2010-10667 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P