[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43984-43987]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17099]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0649; FRL-8788-01-R10]

Air Plan Approval; AK; Juneau's Mendenhall Valley Second 10-Year
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Juneau, Mendenhall Valley, Alaska (AK) limited maintenance
plan (LMP) submitted on November 10, 2020, by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC or ``the State''). This plan addresses
the second 10-year maintenance period beyond redesignation for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). A LMP is used to meet Clean
Air Act (CAA) requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas
that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA is proposing to
determine that Alaska's LMP meets CAA requirements. The plan relies
upon control measures contained in the first 10-year maintenance plan
and the determination that the Mendenhall Valley area currently
monitors PM10 levels well below the PM10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``the standard'').

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2020-0649, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
III. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Attainment Inventory
    C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
    D. Verification of Continued Attainment
    E. Contingency Provisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA designated the City of Juneau,
Mendenhall Valley area (Mendenhall Valley) as a PM10
nonattainment area (NAA) due to measured violations of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS (52 FR 29383). The publication announcing the
designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments was published on
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 6, 1991, the Mendenhall
Valley NAA was subsequently classified as moderate under sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA (56 FR 56694). ADEC worked with the
City of Juneau and the community of Mendenhall Valley to develop a plan
to bring the area into attainment no later than December 31, 1994. The
State submitted the plan to the EPA on June 22, 1993, as a moderate
PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) under section 189(a) of
the CAA. The primary control measures the plan relied on were a wood
smoke control program and paving unpaved roads to control fugitive
dust. The EPA took final action to approve the State's moderate
PM10 SIP on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13884).
    On May 8, 2009, the State requested the EPA redesignate the
Mendenhall Valley NAA to attainment for PM10 and submitted
the Mendenhall Valley PM10 LMP to the EPA for approval. On
July 16, 2010, the EPA determined the Mendenhall Valley NAA had
attained the PM10 NAAQS as of the extended attainment date
of December 31, 1995 (75 FR 41379). On May 9, 2013, the EPA took direct
final action to approve the LMP submitted by the State for the
Mendenhall Valley NAA and concurrently redesignated the area to
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS (78 FR 27071).
    The purpose of the State's November 10, 2020 LMP is to fulfill the
second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure
PM10 NAAQS compliance through 2033.

II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a plan to demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years
after an area is redesignated to attainment. The state must then submit
a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will continue to
attain for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. On
September 4, 1992, the EPA issued guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan (Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (Calcagni Memo)).\1\ The Calcagni
Memo states that a maintenance plan should include the following
provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to
maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or correct future
violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Memorandum from the EPA's Air Quality Management
Division Director to EPA Regional Air Directors entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo) can be found
at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19920904_calcagni_process_redesignation_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas (see Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option
memo).\2\ The LMP Option memo

contains a statistical demonstration states can use to show that areas
are meeting certain air quality criteria with a high degree of
probability and therefore will maintain the standard 10 years into the
future. By providing this statistical demonstration, the EPA can
consider the maintenance demonstration requirement of the CAA to be
satisfied for the moderate PM10 nonattainment area meeting
this air quality criteria. If the tests described in section IV of the
LMP Option memo are met, the EPA will treat that as a demonstration
that the area will maintain the NAAQS. Consequently, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' Memo outlines the criteria for
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan and can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the LMP Option, a State must demonstrate the area
meets the following criteria. First, the area should have attained the
PM10 NAAQS. Second, the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, called the 24-hour average
design value, should be at or below 98 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\). Third, the State should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM10 emissions and should have passed a
motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the LMP Option
Memo identifies core provisions that must be included in all limited
maintenance plans. These provisions include an attainment year
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 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 that 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 the EPA's LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without conforming to 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.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP option
are not subject to the budget test (see 40 CFR 93.109(e)), 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 four 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.
    If the EPA approves the second 10-year LMP, the Mendenhall Valley
maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional
emissions analysis but must meet project-level conformity analyses as
well as the transportation conformity criteria described above.

III. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    As discussed in Section II.A. of this preamble, the LMP Option Memo
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify for an LMP. First, the
area should be attaining the PM10 NAAQS. The PM10
NAAQS is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ is equal to
or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). We have evaluated the most recent
ambient air quality data for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and
determined that the Mendenhall Valley area continues to attain the
NAAQS with zero annual exceedances for the period 2018 through 2020.
Table 1 of this preamble shows the Mendenhall Valley area has not
exceeded the standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour maximum
PM10 concentrations measured at the Floyd Dryden monitoring
site from 2010-2020.

   Table 1--Floyd Dryden 24-Hour Maximum PM10 Concentrations 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      24-Hr    Number of
                                                       max       days
                        Year                          [mu]g/   exceeding
                                                        m3       NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010...............................................       30           0
2011...............................................       24           0
2012...............................................       26           0
2013...............................................       33           0
2014...............................................       38           0
2015...............................................       21           0
2016...............................................       34           0
2017...............................................       30           0
2018...............................................       24           0
2019...............................................       64           0
2020...............................................       35           0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 24-hour average design value for the most recent five
years of monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value
of 98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the PM10 NAAQS. The critical design
value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The 5-year average design value for
Mendenhall Valley, based on PM10 monitoring data from 2014
through 2018, is 49 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition, the EPA calculated the 5-
year average design value for the Mendenhall Valley based on
PM10 monitoring data from 2016 through 2020 and found the
most conservative average design value estimate to be 62 [mu]g/m\3\,
which is below the critical design value of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA's
attainment and average design value evaluation used to determine if the
area qualifies for the LMP option is included in the docket

for this action. The EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by
the State and the most recent 5-year average design value and finds
that the Mendenhall Valley area's 5-year average design value is below
the critical design value of 98 [mu]g/m\3\ outlined in the LMP Option
Memo. Therefore, the EPA finds that the Mendenhall Valley area 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 the LMP Option Memo. The State submitted an
analysis showing that growth in on-road mobile PM10
emissions sources was minimal and would not threaten the assumption of
maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. Using the EPA's methodology,
the State calculated total projected growth in on-road motor vehicle
PM10 emissions through 2033 (the end of the maintenance
planning period) for the Mendenhall Valley area. This calculation is
derived using Attachment B of the EPA's LMP Option Memo, where the
projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled over the next
ten years (VMTpi) is multiplied by the on-road mobile
portion of the attainment year inventory (DVmv), including
re-entrained road dust. This test is met when (VMTpi x
DVmv) plus the design value for the most recent five years
of quality assured data is below the margin of safety (MOS) for the
relevant PM10 standard in [micro]g/m\3\ for a given area.
This MOS value can be 98 [micro]g/m\3\ or a site-specific value
computed from data collected at the site of interest using methods
outlined in Attachment A of the LMP Option Memo. The 24-hour average
design value of 49 [micro]g/m\3\ was used to compute a MOS selected for
the Floyd Dryden monitoring site in Mendenhall Valley of 50.2 [micro]g/
m\3\, which is below the MOS value of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. See the
Mendenhall Valley LMP, Section III.D.3.4 and associated appendix,
placed in the docket for this action, for details of this computation.
The EPA reviewed the calculations in the State's LMP submittal and
concurs with the determination that the area meets the motor vehicle
regional emissions analysis test.
    As described above, the Mendenhall Valley PM10
maintenance area meets the qualification criteria set forth in the LMP
Option Memo and accordingly qualifies for the LMP option. To ensure
these requirements continue to be met, the State commits to evaluate
monitoring data annually to ensure the area continues to qualify for
the LMP option. However, if after performing the annual recalculation
of the area's average design value in a given year, the State
determines that the area no longer qualifies for the LMP, the State
will take action to attempt to reduce PM10 concentrations
enough for the area to requalify for the LMP. One possible approach the
State could take is to implement a contingency measure found in its
SIP. See Section III.D.3.9 of the State's submittal, placed in the
docket for this action, for a description of the contingency measures.

B. Attainment Inventory

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the State's submission should
include an emissions inventory, which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the relevant 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.
    Alaska's Mendenhall Valley PM10 LMP includes an
emissions inventory, with a base year of 2017. The assumptions, methods
and computations used to generate the 2017 emissions inventory are
described in detail in Appendix III.D.3.6 of the Mendenhall Valley LMP
submittal in the docket for this action. The 2017 base year represents
the most recent emissions inventory data available, is representative
of the level of emissions during a period of time used to calculate the
area is attaining the NAAQS, and is consistent with the data used to
determine applicability of the LMP option (i.e., having no violations
of the NAAQS during the five-year period used to calculate the design
value).
    Like the first 10-year LMP, four main source categories were
inventoried for the second 10-year LMP. These include (1) On-Road; (2)
Non-Road; (3) Area Sources; and (4) Point Sources. The same assumptions
and methods used to develop the first 10-year LMP were used to develop
the 2017 base year PM10 emissions inventory for the second
10-year LMP. The analysis of the emissions inventory for the second 10-
year LMP indicates that that the PM10 emissions in the
maintenance area declined by about 78% between 2004 and 2017 and shows
paved roads remain the most significant source of fugitive emissions in
the maintenance area. Fugitive dust from paved roads accounted for
46.2% of the overall inventory; fugitive dust from unpaved roads
accounted for 0.53%; and emissions from wood burning accounted for 8.4%
of the overall inventory.
    Efforts by the City and Borough of Juneau and the State to pave
sections of unpaved roads and sweeping and sanding mitigation programs
in the Valley, as well as the woodsmoke control program, have led to
significant reduction in PM10 emissions. In accordance with
the LMP Option Memo, all controls relied on to demonstrate attainment
and continued maintenance will remain in place, and ADEC asserts that
no additional control measures are necessary to maintain the NAAQS.
    The submittal meets the EPA guidance for purposes of an attainment
emissions inventory, and the emissions inventory data supports the
State's conclusions that the existing control measures will continue to
protect and maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

C. Air Quality Monitoring Network

    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. From 1986 until the present,
Alaska has operated a PM10 monitor at the Floyd Dryden
Middle School in the Mendenhall Valley NAA. The Floyd Dryden monitor
was sited and maintained in accordance with Federal siting and design
criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in consultation with the EPA Region 10.
On June 26, 2020, ADEC submitted the 2020 Annual Monitoring Network
Plan, which the EPA approved on January 25, 2021. ADEC's network plan
and the EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this
action.
    The State commits to continued operation of at least one EPA-
approved PM10 monitoring site in the Mendenhall Valley
maintenance area through the end of the maintenance planning period,
2033, and will continue to operate the monitor consistent with the EPA-
approved ADEC annual network plan in order to meet the EPA requirements
at 40 CFR part 58.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The level of the PM10 NAAQS is 150 [micro]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average concentration. The NAAQS is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). As
stated in Section III.D of this preamble, ADEC commits to continue to
operate a regulatory monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, ADEC commits to verifying continued attainment of the
PM10 standard through the maintenance plan period with the
operation of an appropriate PM10 monitoring network.

In developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, ADEC evaluated the
most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data for the
Mendenhall Valley NAA (2017 through 2019) to verify continued
attainment of the standard.

E. Contingency Provisions

    The 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 an enforceable part of
the federally approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the
provision(s). The LMP Option Memo and the 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 implement all
measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan for the area
prior to redesignation.
    In the Mendenhall Valley PM10 LMP, ADEC included
maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to
meet the PM10 NAAQS. The Mendenhall Valley LMP describes a
process and a timeline to identify, evaluate and select appropriate
contingency measure(s) from a list of potential measures in the event
of a quality assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Within 120
days following a violation of the PM10 NAAQS an assessment
team will evaluate the events contributing to the violation and
identify the appropriate measure(s) that may need to be implemented.
Contingency measures that may be implemented to address the source and
circumstances causing the violation and reduce emissions are listed in
Section III.D.3.9 of the Mendenhall Valley LMP in the docket for this
action. The identified contingency measure(s) may be adopted and
implemented in coordination with the ADEC Commissioner, City Manager
and assembly.
    The contingency provisions submitted in the Mendenhall Valley
PM10 LMP are adequate to meet CAA section 175A requirements
and the contingency provisions as outlined in the LMP Option Memo.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM10
limited maintenance plan for Juneau, Mendenhall Valley submitted by the
State of Alaska.\3\ The EPA has reviewed the air quality data for the
Mendenhall Valley area and determined that the area continues to show
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and meets all the LMP
requirements as described in this action. If finalized, the EPA's
approval of this LMP will satisfy the section 175A CAA requirements for
the second 10-year period for the Mendenhall Valley PM10
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The remainder of the November 10, 2020 State of Alaska SIP
submission (the Eagle River Second 10-year PM10 LMP; the
2019 Emission Limit Control Measures; and the 2019 Adoption by
Reference Updates and Standard Permit Conditions) will be addressed
in separate EPA rulemaking actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 5, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-17099 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21341]
[DOCID:fr21ap08-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM07-3-002]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

April 11, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 1, 2008, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) made a compliance filing submitting
modifications to Violation Risk Factors for ten Requirements in the
Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance (FAC) Reliability
Standards as directed in Order No. 705, the Commission's Final Rule
approving as mandatory and enforceable the FAC Reliability Standards.
Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standard,
Order No. 705, 73 FR 1770 (January 9, 2008), 121 FERC ] 61,296, P 135
(2007). NERC is the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory
Reliability Standards. Order No. 705 was issued on December 27, 2007.
    Any person desiring to comment or to protest this filing must file
in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken. Comments
or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments and
protests in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-8485 Filed 4-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24949]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12757-004--Louisiana]

Red River Lock & Dam No. 4 Hydroelectric Project; BOST4
Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for a
Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides
that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative
efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list
should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the
judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Louisiana State
Historic Preservation Officer (Louisiana SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470f), to
prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places that could be affected by issuance of a license for the
proposed Red River Lock & Dam No. 4 Hydroelectric Project No. 12757.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
Louisiana SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13e). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section
106 for the proposed project would be fulfilled through the
programmatic agreement, which staff proposes to draft in consultation
with certain parties listed below.
    BOST4 Hydroelectric LLC, as applicant for the proposed Red River
Lock & Dam No. 4 Project No. 12757, is invited to participate in
consultations to develop the programmatic agreement. For purposes of
commenting on the programmatic agreement, staff proposes to restrict
the service list for the aforementioned project as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Eddins, Advisory Council on         Douglas A. Spalding, Nelson
 Historic Preservation, The Old Post      Energy, LLC, Agent for BOST4
 Office Building, Suite 803, 1100         Hydroelectric LLC, 8441
 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,     Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101,
 DC 20004.                                Golden Valley, MN 55426.
Pam Breaux, SHPO, Louisiana Department   Dr. Linda Langley, Coushatta
 of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, P.O.   Tribe of Louisiana, P.O. Box
 Box 44247, Baton Rouge, LA 70804.        818, Elton, LA 70532.
Rachel Watson or Representative,         Andrew Tomlinson or
 Louisiana Department of Culture,         Representative, U.S. Army
 Recreation & Tourism, P.O. Box 44247,    Corps of Engineers, 4155 Clay
 Baton Rouge, LA 70804.                   Street, Room 230, Vicksburg,
                                          MS 39183.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason or reasons why there is an
interest to be included. Also please identify any concerns about
historic properties, including traditional cultural properties. If
historic properties are identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments
click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the project number (P-12757-004)
on the first page of the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15-day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15-day
period.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10073 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P