[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40800-40803]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17628]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83820; File No. SR-IEX-2018-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Increase the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee to $0.0009 Per Share
for Executions at or Above $1.00 That Remove Non-Displayed Liquidity

August 10, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\

notice is hereby given that, on (date), the Investors Exchange LLC
(``IEX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and
(c), to increase the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee to $0.0009 per
share for executions at or above $1.00 that remove non-displayed
liquidity. Changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing and will be operative on August 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX
Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to increase the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove
Fee to $0.0009 per share for executions at or above $1.00. The proposed
change eliminates the pricing incentive for removing non-displayed
liquidity at or above $1.00 with a spread-crossing eligible order, as
such execution will be subject to a fee of $0.0009. On May 1, 2018, the
Exchange filed an immediately effective rule filing to introduce a more
deterministic fee of $0.0003 per share for executions at or above $1.00
that result from removing liquidity with an order that is executable at
the far side of the NBBO after accounting for the order's limit (if
any), peg instruction (if any), market conditions, and all applicable
rules and regulations (the ``Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee''
incentive).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83147 (May 1, 2018),
83 FR 20118 (May 7, 2018) (SR-IEX-2018-9) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the rule filing to adopt the Spread-Crossing
Eligible Remove Fee,\7\ the intended purpose of the fee was to
incentivize Members to route more orders to the Exchange that are
executable at the far side of the NBBO by reducing the variability in
fees to access liquidity on the Exchange. However, the Exchange has
observed over time that the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee
incentive has not served its intended purposes. Specifically, the
Exchange has not seen any notable increase in spread-crossing orders
\8\ entered on the Exchange since the operative date of the Spread-
Crossing Eligible Remove Fee incentive on May 1, 2018. In fact, the
average monthly percentage of the Exchange's volume represented by
executions resulting from spread-crossing orders decreased from 22.8%
in May, to 21.6% in June of 2018. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to eliminate the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee
incentive for interacting with resting non-displayed interest by
increasing the fee to $0.0009.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ The Exchange defines ``spread-crossing eligible order'' as a
buy order that is executable at the NBO or a sell order that is
executable at the NBB after accounting for the order's limit (if
any), peg instruction (if any), market conditions, and all
applicable rules and regulations. See the Investors Exchange Fee
Schedule, available on the Exchange public website.
    \9\ Consistent with the Exchange's existing Fee Schedule, the
fee for executions below $1.00 will be 0.30% of the total dollar
value of the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed change, the following fees will be
increasing to $0.0009 from $0.0003 for executions at or above $1.00
that result from removing non-displayed liquidity with a spread-
crossing eligible order. All other fees shall remain unchanged.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fee codes                   Description                Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN.........................  Removes non-displayed               $0.0009
                              liquidity with a spread-
                              crossing eligible order.
IQN........................  Removes non-displayed           \10\ 0.0009
                              liquidity during periods
                              of quote instability with
                              a spread-crossing eligible
                              order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that, consistent with the existing Fee
Schedule, executions with Fee Code Q that exceed the CQRF Threshold
are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee identified in the Fee
Code Modifiers table. Executions with Fee Code Q that do not exceed
the CQRF Threshold are subject to the fees identified in the Fee
Codes and Associated Fees table. See the Investors Exchange Fee
Schedule, available on the Exchange public website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \11\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \12\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is
reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The Exchange
believes the proposal to eliminate the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove
Fee incentive is reasonable because, as discussed above, the fee
incentive has not been successful in achieving its intended purpose of
incentivizing Members to route more orders to the Exchange that are
executable at the far side of the NBBO. The Exchange has limited
resources available to it to devote to the operation of pricing
incentives and as such, it is reasonable and equitable for the Exchange
to reallocate those resources away from programs that are ineffective.
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee incentive for
executions against resting non-displayed interest will be eliminated
for all Members, as the increased fee will be charged to all Members
that remove non-displayed liquidity with a spread-crossing eligible
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that as proposed, spread-crossing orders that
remove displayed liquidity will be charged a lower fee than if such
orders had removed non-displayed liquidity. However, the Exchange
believes the proposal remains reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because spread-crossing orders may interact with non-
displayed interest resting

within the spread, thereby receiving price improvement equal to the
delta between the execution price and the far side quotation (i.e., the
difference between the trade price and the NBO (NBB) for buy (sell)
orders). Accordingly, the Exchange believes that spread-crossing orders
removing non-displayed liquidity receive a significant benefit in the
form of potential price improvement, and are thus not subject to
unfairly discriminatory fees.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that the proposed fee for spread-
crossing eligible orders that remove liquidity is identical to the fee
assessed by the Exchange prior to the introduction of the Spread-
Crossing Eligible Remove Fee, pursuant to the IEX Fee Schedule that was
filed with the Commission pursuant to the Act.\13\ Thus, the Exchange
believe the proposed change does not present any unique or novel issues
under the Act that have not already been considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80453 (April 13,
2017), 82 FR 18503 (April 19, 2017) (SR-IEX-2016-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposed increase in the Spread-
Crossing Remove Fee to $0.0009 from $0.0003 is reasonable in that is
within the range of transaction fees currently charged by the
Exchange,\14\ and continues to be substantially lower than the fee for
removing liquidity on competing exchanges with a ``maker-taker'' fee
structure (i.e., that provide a rebate to liquidity adders and charge
liquidity removers).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the proposed Spread-Crossing Remove Fee is
equal to the Non-Displayed Match Fee. See the Investors Exchange Fee
Schedule, available on the Exchange public website.
    \15\ See e.g., the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') trading
fee schedule on its public website reflects fees to ``take''
liquidity ranging from $0.0024-$0.0030 depending on the type of
market participant, order and execution; the Nasdaq Stock Market
(``Nasdaq'') trading fee schedule on its public website reflects
fees to ``remove'' liquidity ranging from $0.0025-$0.0030 per share
for shares executed in continuous trading at or above $1.00 or 0.30%
of total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00; the Cboe BZX
Exchange (``Cboe BZX) trading fee schedule on its public website
reflects fees for ``removing'' liquidity ranging from $0.0025-
$0.0030, for shares executed in continuous trading at or above $1.00
or 0.30% of total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With regard to intra-market
competition, the Exchange notes that the increased fee will be charged
to all Members that remove non-displayed liquidity with a spread-
crossing eligible order, and thus there will be no competitive burdens
placed on Members as a result of the proposed change. With regard to
inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and
alternative trading systems. Because competitors are free to modify
their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    Moreover, trading venues are free to adjust their fees and credits
in response to any changes that the Exchange makes to its fees and
credits. If any of the changes proposed herein are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \17\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2018-17 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-IEX-2018-17. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-IEX-2018-17 and should be submitted on or before
September 6, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17628 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1714]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-378-001]

Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

January 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 3, 2007, Minnesota Energy Resources
Corporation (MERC) tendered for filing initial transportation rates
approved by Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for the services most
comparable to the services provided by MERC to its customer, Aquila, to
be used to serve Aquila's 11 residential customers in Iowa.
    MERC states that the filing is being made in compliance with the
Commission's order issued on November 30, 2006.
    Any person desiring 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 to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 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>.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 29, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-442 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39838-39839]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 77-316, 96-050, 137-216, 175-030, 233-245, 606-041, 619-
175, 803-119, 1061-105, 1121-137, 1354-033, 1962-221, 1988-102, 2105-
129, 2106-077, 2107-051, 2130-125, 2310-252, 2661-094, 2687-189, 2735-
102, and 14531-002]

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Generation, LLC; Notice
of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On December 13, 2022, as supplemented on April 10, 2023, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or transferor) and Pacific Generation
(Pacific or transferee) filed jointly an application for the transfer
of license of the following projects:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Project name                     Project No.                       Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potter Valley.................................              77  Eel and East Branch Russian rivers, Mendocino
                                                                 and Lake counties, California.
Kerckhoff.....................................              96  San Joaquin River, Fresno and Madera counties,
                                                                 California.
Mokelumne River...............................             137  Mokelumne, North Fork Mokelumne, and Bear rivers
                                                                 and tributaries of the North Fork, Alpine,
                                                                 Amador, and Calaveras counties, California.
Balch.........................................             175  North Fork Kings River, Fresno County,
                                                                 California.
Pit 3, 4, and 5...............................             233  Pit River, Shasta County, California.
Kilarc-Cow Creek..............................             606  South Cow and Old Cow creeks, Shasta County,
                                                                 California.
Bucks Creek...................................             619  Bucks, Grizzly, and Milk Ranch creeks and their
                                                                 tributaries, Plumas County, California.
DeSabla-Centerville...........................             803  West Branch Feather River and Butte Creek
                                                                 tributaries, Butte County, California.
Phoenix.......................................            1061  South Fork of the Stanislaus River in Tuolumne
                                                                 County, California.
Battle Creek..................................            1121  Mainstem, North Fork, and South Fork Battle
                                                                 Creek, Shasta and Tehama counties, California.
Crane Valley..................................            1354  North Fork Willow, South Fork Willow, Chilkoot,
                                                                 and Chiquito creeks, Madera County, California.
Rock Creek-Cresta.............................            1962  North Fork Feather River and its tributaries,
                                                                 Plumas and Butte counties, California.
Haas-Kings River..............................            1988  North Fork Kings River, Fresno County,
                                                                 California.
Upper North Fork Feather River................            2105  North Fork Feather River and on Butt Creek,
                                                                 Plumas County, California.
McCloud-Pit...................................            2106  McCloud and Pit rivers, Shasta County,
                                                                 California.
Poe...........................................            2107  North Fork Feather River, Butte County,
                                                                 California.
Spring Gap-Stanislaus.........................            2130  Middle and South Fork Stanislaus River,
                                                                 Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, California.
Upper Drum-Spaulding..........................            2310  Yuba and Bear rivers, Nevada and Placer
                                                                 counties, California.
Hat Creek.....................................            2661  Hat Creek, Shasta County, California.
Pit 1.........................................            2687  Fall and Pit rivers, Shasta County, California.
Helms Pumped Storage Project..................            2735  Helms Creek and North Fork Kings River, Fresno
                                                                 County, California.

Lower Drum Spaulding..........................           14531  Bear River, Nevada County, California.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses
for the above projects from the transferor to the transferee. The
transfer of licenses is part of a broader corporate restructuring to
facilitate raising equity capital for PG&E's utility needs. The
transferee will be required by the Commission to comply with all the
requirements of the licenses as though it were the original licensee.
    Applicant Contacts: For Transferor and Transferee: Kimberly
Ognisty, Chief Counsel, Law Department, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, Oakland General Office, 300 Lakeside Avenue, Oakland, CA
94612, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected], and
Charles R. Sensiba, Elizabeth J. McCormick, Troutman Pepper Hamilton
Sanders, LLP, 401 9th St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, Phone
(CS):<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Phone (EM):<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected] and [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Mrs. Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to, Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any
other carrier must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include Project
numbers 77-316, 96-050, 137-216, 175-030, 233-245, 606-041, 619-175,
803-119, 1061-105, 1121-137, 1354-133, 1962-221, 1988-102, 2105-129,
2106-077, 1107-051, 2130-125, 2310-252, 2661-094, 2687-189, 2735-102,
and 14531-002. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered
part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: June 13, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13076 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56930-56932]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22160]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0648; FRL-9096-03-R9]

Adequacy Status of Post-Attainment Year Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets in 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan for South Coast; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the
public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (``budgets'') for the year 2020 in the 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin ``Serious'' nonattainment area
(``South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan'') are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes. The California Air Resources
Board (CARB) submitted the South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious
Area Plan to the EPA on April 27, 2017, as a revision to the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Upon the effective date of this notice
of adequacy, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must use the adequate
budgets in future transportation conformity analyses.

DATES: This finding is effective October 28, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA, Region IX, Air
Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415) 972-3964 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. By letter dated September 28, 2021, EPA Region IX
notified CARB that the budgets in the South Coast 2006 PM2.5
Serious Area Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP) post-
attainment milestone year of 2020 are adequate.\1\ The finding is
available at EPA's conformity website: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/conformity-adequacy-review-region-9. We announced
the availability of the South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area
Plan and related 2020 budgets on the EPA's transportation conformity
website on April 16, 2021. We received no comments in response to the
adequacy review posting. The adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets
are provided in the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB.

              Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan
                                         [Annual average, tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Directly
                                                                 emitted fine       Nitrogen         Volatile
                         Budget year                             particulate      oxides (NOX)       organic
                                                                matter (PM2.5)                   compounds (VOC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.........................................................              20              152               77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section
176(c). The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do conform.\2\ Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's budgets are
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4),
which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final rule.\3\ We further
described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP
budgets in our July 1, 2004 final rule \4\ and we used the information
in these resources in making the adequacy determination announced in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 43780, 43781-43783.
    \4\ 69 FR 40004, 40038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA approved the South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area
Plan on February 12, 2019.\5\ In that action, we approved the budgets
for the 2017 RFP year and the 2019 attainment year. We also approved a
trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that allows
future decreases in NOX from on-road mobile sources to
offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, based on specified
trading ratios.\6\ The South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) indicated that the trading mechanism was included in the 2016
AQMP for approval by the EPA for use by SCAG in conformity
determinations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for analysis years
after the attainment year of 2019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 84 FR 3305.
    \6\ 83 FR 49872, 49891-49894 (October 3, 2018).
    \7\ Letter dated March 14, 2018, from Philip Fine, Deputy
Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources,
SCAQMD, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region
IX, regarding trading ratios among PM2.5 precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements set out in our implementation rule
for the PM2.5 NAAQS,\8\ we did not act on the RFP budget for
the post-attainment year of 2020 when we approved the South Coast 2006
PM2.5 Serious Area Plan. As we noted in our proposed
approval of the South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan, it
is not necessary to demonstrate conformity for 2020 or to use the 2020
budgets until such time as the area fails to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements Rule,'' 81 FR
58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 16, 2020, the EPA determined that the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin had failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by its December 31, 2019 attainment date.\9\
Because of that failure to attain, we evaluated the submitted budgets
for 2020 in the South Coast 2006 PM2.5 Serious Area Plan to
determine whether they are adequate for conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 85 FR 57733.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e), within two years of the effective
date of this notice, SCAG and the DOT will need to demonstrate
conformity. For demonstrating conformity to the budgets in this plan,
the on-road motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the
transportation plan or program should be projected consistently with
the budgets in this plan, i.e., by taking the emissions results derived
from CARB's EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) and then rounding
the emissions up to the nearest ton. The previously approved trading
mechanism may be used in connection with the new budgets.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 5, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-22160 Filed 10-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P