[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67402-67408]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25527]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0677; FRL-9276-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Catawba Indian Nation Portion
of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill Area Limited Maintenance Plan for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of South Carolina, through the Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC), via a letter dated July 7, 2020. The SIP
revision includes the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Catawba Indian
Nation portion (hereinafter referred to as the Catawba Area) of the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area
(hereinafter referred to as the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS
Area). The Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area is comprised of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of
Iredell County (i.e., Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in North
Carolina and a portion of York County, South Carolina which includes
the Catawba Area. EPA is proposing to approve the Catawba Area LMP
because it provides for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
within the Catawba Area through the end of the second 10-year portion
of the maintenance period. The effect of this action would be to make
certain commitments related to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Catawba Area federally enforceable as part of the South
Carolina SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0677 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9029. Ms. Spann can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. South Carolina's SIP Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of South Carolina's SIP Submittal
    A. Area Characteristics
    B. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    C. Maintenance Demonstration
    D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    E. Contingency Plan
    F. Conclusion
V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the Catawba Area LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
adopted by DHEC on July 7, 2020, and submitted by DHEC as a revision to
the South Carolina SIP under a letter dated July 7, 2020.\1\ In 2004,
the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, which includes the Catawba
Area, was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Subsequently, in 2012, after a clean data determination \2\ and EPA's
approval of a maintenance plan, the South Carolina portion of the
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, which includes the Catawba
Area, was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the SIP submission on July 10, 2020.
    \2\ See 77 FR 13493 (March 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Catawba Area LMP is designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS within the Catawba Area through the end of the second 10-year
portion of the maintenance period beyond redesignation. EPA is
proposing to approve the plan because it meets all applicable
requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A.
    As a general matter, the Catawba Area LMP relies on the same
control measures and relevant contingency provisions to maintain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period as the maintenance plan submitted by DHEC for the
first 10-year period.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and in adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma and other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010, and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18,
1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\4\ EPA set the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be more
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Charlotte
NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area which consists of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell County
(i.e., Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina and a
portion of York County, South Carolina, including the Catawba Area, as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The designation became
effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
    Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/
attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\5\ The
Catawba Area was designated unclassifiable/attainment although the
surrounding Charlotte--Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Area \6\ (hereinafter
referred to as the Charlotte NC-SC 2008 NAAQS Area) was designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as a
marginal nonattainment area. This designation became effective on July
20, 2012.\7\ In summary, the Catawba Area was included in the Charlotte
NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS boundary designation in 2004 but was not
included in the Charlotte NC-SC 2008 NAAQS boundary designation in
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2011, EPA established the ``Guidance to Regions for
Working with Tribes during the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) Designations Process'' memorandum providing
guidance to EPA Regional Offices for working with federally-
recognized Indian tribes regarding the CAA section 107(d) NAAQS
boundary designations process for Indian country. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/12-20-11_guidance_to_regions_for_working_with_tribes_naaqs_designations.pdf
. This guidance was then applied to the 2012 designation process for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    \6\ The Charlotte--Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS consists of portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell,
Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties and the entirety of Mecklenburg
County in North Carolina, and a portion of York County, South
Carolina which excludes the Catawba Area.
    \7\ See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The entire states of North Carolina and South
Carolina--including the Catawba Indian Nation--were designated
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an
effective date on January 16, 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 82 FR 54232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state may submit a request to redesignate a nonattainment area
that is attaining a NAAQS to attainment, and, if the area has met other
required criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may
approve the redesignation request.\9\ One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to

ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as necessary to
assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly corrected. Eight
years after the effective date of redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA section 175A(b)
(i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\10\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified
in three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that
the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using
information such as the area's design value \11\ being significantly
below the standard and the area having a historically stable design
value.\12\ EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined
demonstration as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \11\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone area is the
highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \12\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, OAQPS, dated
November 16, 1994; ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS,
dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs
have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS.
As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must
still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state
seeking an LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a
revision to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures.
While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect
to certain NAAQS,\13\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of
section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by
the previous guidance memos.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
    \14\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of the
second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve the Catawba Area LMP
because the State has made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP
guidance, that the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area's ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable, and that it has met the other maintenance plan
requirements. DHEC submitted this LMP for the Catawba Area to fulfill
the second maintenance plan requirement in the Act. EPA's evaluation of
the Catawba Area LMP is presented below.
    In June of 2011, DHEC submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the
York County, South Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour
NAAQS Area (which includes the Catawba Area), to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal included a plan to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997
8-hour NAAQS Area through 2022 as a revision to the South Carolina SIP.
EPA approved South Carolina's Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area
Maintenance Plan and the State's request to redesignate the South
Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 NAAQS Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective December 26, 2012.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 77 FR 75862 (December 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that
one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated
to attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\16\ On December 11, 2015, EPA redesignated the South Carolina
portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 2008 NAAQS Area (which does not include
the Catawba Area) as attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
the designation became effective on January 11, 2016. See 80 FR 76865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the revocation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, second maintenance plans were not
required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (maintenance
areas) and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. South
Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with these ``orphan
maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS must submit
maintenance plans for the second maintenance period. Accordingly,
through a letter dated July 7, 2020, South Carolina submitted a second
maintenance plan covering the Catawba Area that provides for attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2032.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In an email dated October 18, 2021, DHEC clarified that the
end of the maintenance plan submitted on June 7, 2020, is 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, DHEC
chose the LMP option for the development of its second 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS maintenance plan covering the Catawba Area. On July 7,
2020, DHEC adopted this second 10-year 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan, and subsequently submitted the Catawba Area LMP to EPA as a
revision to the South Carolina SIP.

III. South Carolina's SIP Submittal

    As mentioned above, on July 7, 2020, DHEC submitted the Catawba
Area LMP

to EPA as a revision to the South Carolina SIP. The submittal includes
the LMP, air quality data, a summary of the previous emissions
inventory and a conclusion regarding future emission levels, and
attachments, as well as certification of adoption of the plan by DHEC.
Attachments to the plan include documentation of notice, opportunity
for hearing and public participation prior to adoption of the plan by
DHEC on July 7, 2020, and state legal authority. The LMP notes that
South Carolina's LMP submittal for the remainder of the 20-year
maintenance period for the Catawba Area is in response to the D.C.
Circuit's decision overturning aspects of EPA's Implementation Plan
rule. The Catawba Area LMP does not include any additional emissions
reduction measures but relies on the same emissions reduction strategy
as the first 10-year Maintenance Plan that provides for the maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2022. Prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) requirements and control measures contained in the
SIP will continue to apply, and federal measures (e.g., Federal motor
vehicle control program) will continue to be implemented in the Catawba
Area.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of South Carolina's SIP Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Catawba Area LMP which is designed to maintain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Catawba Area through the end of
the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as required under CAA section
175A(b).
    As discussed below, the Catawba Area's impact on the larger
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area is very limited due to its size,
population, and emissions profile. In addition, the monitoring values
in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, including the Catawba
Area, are well below the NAAQS. As a result, EPA is proposing to
approve the Catawba Area LMP as meeting the 175A requirements. The
following is a more detailed summary of EPA's interpretation of the
section 175A requirements \18\ and EPA's evaluation of how each
requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Area Characteristics

    The Catawba Indian Nation tribal lands are comprised of a total of
approximately 1,000 acres, in two sections along the Catawba River in
the eastern portion of York County, South Carolina.\19\ The total
Catawba Indian Nation population is 3,370 (2010 Census), however, based
on recent census estimates, the population of the Reservation is only
1,288 with 517 housing units within the Reservation.\20\ According to
the 2019 census estimates, the total York County population is 280,979,
and the Reservation is home to 0.46 percent of York County's
population.\21\ The Reservation is a residential area which contains no
industry, no limited access highways or transportation facilities, and
only a few miles of secondary roads. There is a boat ramp but there are
no airports, helipads, railroad tracks, or associated facilities. The
Reservation has no shopping centers or industrial sites. The only
community facilities, which are of modest size, are the Tribal offices
and the Senior Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As described in the July 7, 2020 Submittal, the Catawba
Area consists of two tracts of land along the Catawba River with a
total land base of approximately 1,000 acres, which comprises only
0.002 percent of the land area of York County. See Technical Support
Document for Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC Area Designations for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0642.
    \20\ See Catawba Reservation, U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, available at https://www.census.gov/tribal/index.html?aianihh=0525.
    \21\ Id., see also https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/yorkcountysouthcarolina (showing York County, South Carolina with a
2019 estimated population of 280,979 and a 2020 census population of
282,090).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOC and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
    The 175A maintenance plan approved by EPA included an attainment
inventory for the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-
hour NAAQS Area that reflects typical summer day VOC and NOX
emissions in 2010.\22\ As previously mentioned, the Catawba Area is
included in the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-
hour NAAQS Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 77 FR 68087 (November 15, 2012) and 77 FR 75862
(December 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Catawba Nation Reservation is a small residential area,
both geographically and in population, with no industrial sites, no
limited access highways, no transportation facilities, and no point
sources of ozone precursors, there are no estimates of VOC and
NOX emissions from the Catawba Area. Given the unique nature
of the Catawba Area and the air quality analysis in section IV.C,
below, EPA does not believe that a detailed accounting of attainment
level emissions is necessary in this instance.

C. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in a LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation
over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\23\ These criteria
are evaluated below with regard to the Catawba Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. At
the time of submission, EPA evaluated quality assured and certified
2016-2018 monitoring data and determined that the highest design value
for the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area was 0.070 ppm, or 83
percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (measured at the
University Meadows monitor in Mecklenburg, North Carolina (AQS ID: 37-
119-0046)), and the design value for the Catawba Area monitor (AQS ID:
45-091-8801) was 0.064 ppm, or 76 percent of the level of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Based on quality assured and certified monitoring
data for 2018-2020, the current, highest design value for the Charlotte
NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area is 0.067 ppm, or 80 percent of the level
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (measured at the University Meadows
monitor and the Garinger High School Monitor in Mecklenburg, NC (AQS
ID: 37-119-0041)), and the current design value for the Catawba Area
monitor is 0.062 ppm, or 74 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the
most recent air quality design value for the area is at a level that is
well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85 percent of the NAAQS, or in this
case below 0.071 ppm), then

EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A requirement for a
demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Such a demonstration assumes continued applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration requirements and any control
measures already in the SIP and that Federal measures will remain in
place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance period, absent
a showing consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not
necessary to assure maintenance.
    Table 3 presents the design values for each monitor in the
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area over the 2008-2020 period. As
shown in Table 3, all sites have been below the level of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS since the area was redesignated to attainment, and the
most current design value is below the level of 85 percent of the
NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.

   Table 3--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (DV) (ppm) at Monitoring Sites in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 NAAQS Area for the 2008-2020 Time Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2008-   2009-   2010-   2011-   2012-   2013-   2014-   2015-   2016-   2017-   2018-
            Location              County (state)/    AQS site ID   2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020
                                    tribal land                     DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catawba Area Monitor...........  Catawba Indian      45-091-8801     (*)     (*)     (*)     (*)     (*)     (*)     (*)     (*)   0.064   0.064   0.062
                                  Nation.
Arrowood.......................  Mecklenburg (NC).   37-119-1005   0.073   0.076   0.077   0.072   0.066    (**)    (**)    (**)    (**)    (**)    (**)
Crouse.........................  Lincoln (NC).....   37-109-0004   0.072   0.071   0.075   0.072   0.068   0.065   0.067   0.067   0.065   0.064   0.060
Enochville.....................  Rowan (NC).......   37-159-0022   0.077   0.076   0.077   0.072   (***)   (***)   (***)   (***)   (***)   (***)   (***)
Garinger High School...........  Mecklenburg (NC).   37-119-0041   0.078   0.079   0.083   0.078   0.070   0.068   0.069   0.069   0.068   0.070   0.067
County Line....................  Mecklenburg (NC).   37-117-1009   0.082   0.078   0.083   0.078   0.073   0.067  (****)  (****)  (****)  (****)  (****)
University Meadows.............  Mecklenburg (NC).   37-119-0046  (****)  (****)  (****)  (****)  (****)  (****)   0.070   0.070   0.070   0.069   0.067
Rockwell.......................  Rowan (NC).......   37-159-0021   0.077   0.075   0.078   0.073   0.068   0.064   0.065   0.064   0.062   0.062   0.061
Monroe School..................  Union (NC).......   37-179-0003   0.072   0.070   0.073   0.070   0.068   0.065   0.068   0.067   0.068   0.068   0.063
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ozone monitor in the Catawba Indian Nation (AQS Site ID 45-091-8801) began operation for the 2016 ozone season.
** The Arrowood monitor in Mecklenburg County (AQS Site ID 37-119-1005) was shut down in 2014.
*** The Enochville School monitor in Rowan County (AQS Site ID 37-159-0022) was shut down in 2013.
**** In 2014, the ozone monitor at Mecklenburg County Line (AQS Site ID 37-117-1009) changed locations to University Meadows (AQS ID 37-119-0046).

    Therefore, the Catawba Area is eligible for the LMP option, and EPA
proposes to find that the long record of monitored ozone concentrations
that attain the NAAQS, together with the continuation of existing VOC
and NOX emissions control programs in the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, adequately provide for the maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Catawba Area through the second 10-year
maintenance period and beyond.
    Additional supporting information that the Area is expected to
continue to maintain the NAAQS can be found in projections of future
year design values that EPA recently completed for the Revised Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS that EPA
finalized on April 30, 2021.\24\ Those projections, made for the year
2023, show that the maximum design value for the Charlotte NC-SC 1997
Ozone Area is expected to be 60.3 ppb and the maximum design value of
the Catawba Area monitor is expected to be 53.3 ppb. EPA is not
proposing to make any finding in this action regarding interstate
transport obligations for any state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the final Revised Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update (RCU) using updated modeling
that focused on analytic years 2023 and 2028 and an
``interpolation'' analysis of these modeling results to generate air
quality and contribution values for the 2021 analytic year. See 86
FR 23054. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-30/pdf/2021-05705.pdf. This modeling included projected ozone design values
for ozone monitors in the Catawba Area and Charlotte SC-NC
maintenance areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area has
maintained air quality below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the past
eleven design values. Additionally, the design value data shown in
Table 3 illustrates that ozone levels have been relatively stable over
this timeframe, with a modest downward trend. For example, the data in
Table 3 indicates that the largest, year over year change in design
value at any one monitor during these eleven years was 0.008 ppm which
occurred between the 2013 design value and the 2014 design value,
representing approximately a 10 percent decrease at monitor 37-119-0041
(Garinger High School). Furthermore, there is an overall downward trend
in design values for the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area. See,
e.g., Table 1, above, data for monitor 37-159-0021 (Rockwell)0.016 ppm,
or 20.8 percent). This downward trend in ozone levels, coupled with the
relatively small, year-over-year variation in ozone design values,
makes it reasonable to conclude that the Catawba Area will not exceed
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year maintenance
period.

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring networks operated and
maintained by the states in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The network
plans, which are submitted annually to EPA, are consistent with the
ambient air quality monitoring network assessment. It is important to
note that the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area was designated
nonattainment due to violating monitors in the North Carolina portion
of that area and that South Carolina has never operated any part 58
monitors in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area.\25\ \26\ North
Carolina operates a network plan with multiple monitors within the
boundary of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area. The annual
network plan developed by North Carolina follows a public notification
and review process. EPA has reviewed and approved the North Carolina's
2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan (``2020 Annual Network Plan'')
which addresses the relevant monitors used to determine attainment for
the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area.\27\

Separately, North Carolina has committed to maintain the monitoring
network that is used to monitor ozone for compliance with the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, which includes the monitors within the North Carolina
portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) for the final designation
action for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/1997-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-nonattainment for the monitoring data
associated with the designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    \26\ South Carolina maintains one monitor in York County.
Although that monitor is near the maintenance boundary, it is not
used to determine compliance of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour
NAAQS Area with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because it is not
located within the maintenance area.
    \27\ See October 30, 2020, letter and approval from Caroline
Freeman, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 4 to Mike
Abraczinskas, Director, Division of Air Quality, North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, available in the docket for
this proposed action.
    \28\ See 78 FR 72036 (December 2, 2013), 78 FR 45152 (July 26,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the nonattainment designation for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, the Catawba Indian Nation, under a CAA section 103 grant
agreement with EPA, erected and operates a monitor in the Catawba Area.
EPA provides oversight of the Catawba Indian Nation's operation of this
monitor through normal grant monitoring activities on annual basis.
    To verify the attainment status of the Area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, North Carolina's 2020
Annual Network Plan, which covers the monitors within the Charlotte NC-
SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, has been approved by EPA in accordance with
40 CFR part 58, and North Carolina has committed to continue to
maintain a network in accordance with EPA requirements. Although South
Carolina does not operate any part 58 monitors in the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, the State commits to continue operating an
approved ozone monitoring network near the South Carolina portion of
that area; commits to consult with the EPA prior to making changes to
the existing monitoring network should changes become necessary in the
future; and acknowledges the obligation to meet monitoring requirements
in compliance with 40 CFR part 58.\29\ EPA proposes to find that there
is an adequate ambient air quality monitoring network in the Charlotte
NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area to verify continued attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See South Carolina's July 7, 2020, SIP submittal at page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or to promptly remedy any
NAAQS violations that might occur during the maintenance period. These
contingency measures are required to be implemented expeditiously once
they are triggered by a future violation of the NAAQS or some other
trigger. The state should identify specific triggers which will be used
to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
    The trigger identified in the Catawba Area LMP is a Quality
Assured/Quality Controlled (QA/QC) violating design value of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS within or near the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS
Area.\30\ If this trigger is activated, the maintenance plan requires
South Carolina to conduct analyses to determine the emission control
measures that will be necessary for attaining or maintaining the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan outlines the steps that South
Carolina must conduct to determine control measures, including
verification and analysis of data related to the exceedance, and
possible causes. South Carolina will adopt and implement appropriate
contingency measures tailored to the specific circumstances of the
violation (or increased concentrations) within 24 months after a
triggering event.\31\ \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ If QA/QC data indicates a violating design value for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, then the triggering event will be the date of the
design value violation, and not the final QA/QC date. However, if
initial monitoring data indicates a possible design value violation
but later QA/QC indicates that a NAAQS violation did not occur, then
a triggering event will not have occurred, and contingency measures
will not need to be implemented.
    \31\ As stated above, the Catawba Area LMP contains the same
contingency measures that were included in the first 10-year
maintenance plan, as tailored to the Catawba Area. For example, some
contingency measures included only in the first 10-year LMP would
have limited emissions reductions or were not applicable based on
the characteristics of the Catawba Area (for example, alternative
fuel programs for fleet vehicle operations, as there are no vehicle
fleets in the Catawba Area). In addition, South Carolina added a
provision to work closely with the York County Air Coalition for
outreach and stakeholder input, contingency measure support, and
community emission reduction efforts, which is a logical extension
in recognition that this LMP is for a subset of the larger South
Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area.
    \32\ See the Contingency Plan section of the Catawba Area LMP
for further information regarding the contingency plan, including
measures that South Carolina will consider for adoption if the
trigger is activated, as well as additional steps and notification
to EPA if DHEC determines additional time than 24 months is
necessary to implement specific contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in South
Carolina's second maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meet
the requirements of the CAA section 175A(d).

F. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the Catawba Area LMP for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS includes an approvable update of various elements of the
initial EPA-approved Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA also proposes to find that the Catawba Area qualifies for the LMP
option and adequately demonstrates maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through the documentation of monitoring data showing maximum 1997
8-hour ozone levels below the NAAQS and historically stable design
values. EPA believes the Catawba Area LMP, which retains existing
control measures in the SIP, is sufficient to provide for maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Catawba Area over the second
maintenance period (i.e., through 2032) and thereby satisfies the
requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). EPA is
therefore proposing to approve South Carolina's July 7, 2020,
submission of the Catawba Area LMP as a revision to the South Carolina
SIP.

V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
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. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent
with the motor vehicles emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the
control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124. A MVEB is defined as ``the portion of the total
allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control
strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain
date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones
or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions.'' See 40 CFR 93.101.
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). On October
9, 2012, EPA made a finding that the MVEBs for the first 10 years of
the 1997 8-hour ozone

maintenance plan for the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area were adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. In a Federal Register notice dated September 24, 2012, EPA
notified the public of that finding. See 77 FR 58829. This adequacy
determination became effective on October 9, 2012. After approval of
this LMP or an adequacy finding for this LMP, there is no requirement
to meet the budget test pursuant to the transportation conformity rule
for the Catawba Area. All actions that would require a transportation
conformity determination for the Catawba Area under EPA's
transportation conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result of EPA's adequacy finding for
this LMP. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation
projects still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40
CFR 93.105) and Transportation Control Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113) as well as meet the hot-spot
requirements for projects (40 CFR 93.116).\33\ Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently
than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order for
projects to be approved they must come from a currently conforming RTP
and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 93.115. The Charlotte NC-SC 2008
NAAQS Area must continue to meet all of the applicable requirements of
the general conformity regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ A conformity determination that meets other applicable
criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this section (93.109(e)) is
still required, including the hot-spot requirements for projects in
CO, PM10, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the Catawba Area LMP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by DHEC on July 7, 2020, as a
revision to the South Carolina SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
Catawba Area LMP because it includes an acceptable update of various
elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by
EPA for the first 10-year period and retains the relevant provisions of
the SIP.
    EPA also finds that the Catawba Area qualifies for the LMP option
and that therefore the Catawba Area LMP adequately demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through documentation of
monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the
NAAQS and continuation of existing control measures. EPA believes the
Catawba Area's 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMP to be sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Catawba Area over the
second 10-year maintenance period, through 2032, and thereby satisfy
the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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. 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 proposed 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).
    Because this Catawba Area LMP merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this Catawba Area LMP
for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this action will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation
(CIN) Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to
impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies,
in accordance with the Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental Relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: November 17, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator,Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-25527 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Total.........................  ................  ................  250.......................  15 hours.................  1,875 hours.
                                                                                $1,080...................  $135,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the total cost of
compliance as follows: \186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Number of Applicable Registered Entities.
    \186\ The costs for Year 1 consist of filing revisions to the
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA with the Commission within 90 days
of the effective date of this Final Rule plus initial
implementation. The Commission does not expect any ongoing costs
beyond the initial compliance in Year 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 1: $135,000 ($1,080/utility).
     Year 2: $0.
    After implementation in Year 1, the revisions adopted in this Final
Rule would be complete.
    Title: FERC-516B, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    Action: Revisions to an information collection.
    OMB Control No.: TBD
    Respondents for this Rulemaking: Businesses or other for profit
and/or not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: One-time during Year 1.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission adopts revisions in this
Final Rule to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to improve the
reliability of the bulk power system by requiring all newly
interconnecting non-synchronous generators to provide reactive power as
a condition of interconnection, and to ensure that all generators are
being treated in a not unduly discriminatory or preferential manner.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements in
this Final Rule and has determined that such revisions are necessary.
These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient
information collection, communication, and management within the energy
industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal
review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden
estimates associated with the information collection requirements.
    81. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    82. Comments on the collection of information and the associated
burden estimates in this Final Rule should be sent to the Commission in
this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference the docket number of this
rulemaking in your submission.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    83. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \187\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does
not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires
consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small
entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size
standards (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a
standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of
employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some
transmission owners will fall under the following category and
associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and
control, at 500 employees.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. The Commission estimates that the total number of public
utility transmission providers that would have to modify the LGIAs and
SGIAs within their currently effective OATTs is 132. Of these, the
Commission estimates that approximately 43 percent are small entities
(approximately 57 entities). The Commission estimates the average total
cost to each of these entities will be minimal, requiring on average 15
hours or $1,080. According to SBA guidance, the determination of
significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the
business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the
regulation has on larger competitors.'' \189\ The Commission does not
consider the estimated burden to be a significant economic impact. As a
result, the Commission certifies that the revisions adopted in this
Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Environmental Analysis

    86. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\190\ As we
stated in the NOPR, the Commission concludes that neither an
Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is
required for the revisions adopted in this Final Rule under section
380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's

regulations, which provides a categorical exemption for approval of
actions under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of
schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale
of electric energy subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the
classification, practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates,
charges, classifications, and services.\191\ The revisions adopted in
this Final Rule update and clarify the application of the Commission's
standard interconnection requirements to non-synchronous generators.
Therefore, this Final Rule falls within the categorical exemptions
provided in the Commission's regulations, and as a result neither an
Environmental Impact Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \191\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Document Availability

    87. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    88. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field.
    89. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    90. The Final Rule is effective September 21, 2016. However, as
noted above, the requirements of this Final Rule will apply only to
newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators that have not yet
executed a Facilities Study Agreement. The Commission has determined,
with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this Final Rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to
the Senate, House, Government Accountability Office, and Small Business
Administration.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Non-discriminatory open
access transmission tariffs.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: June 16, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

                     Appendix A--List of Commenters
                              [RM16-1-000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWEA and LSA......................  American Wind Energy Association and
                                     Large-scale Solar Association.
CAISO.............................  California Independent System
                                     Operator Corporation.
EEI...............................  Edison Electric Institute.
EPSA..............................  Electric Power Supply Association.
Idaho Power.......................  Idaho Power Company.
Indicated NYTOs...................  Consolidated Edison Company of New
                                     York, Inc.; Niagara Mohawk Power
                                     Corporation d/b/a National Grid;
                                     and Orange and Rockland Utilities,
                                     Inc.
ISO/RTO Council...................  ISO/RTO Council.
ISO[dash]NE.......................  ISO New England Inc.
ITC...............................  International Transmission Company d/
                                     b/a ITC Transmission; Michigan
                                     Electric Transmission Company, LLC;
                                     ITC Midwest LLC; and ITC Great
                                     Plains, LLC.
Joint NYTOs.......................  New York Power Authority; New York
                                     State Electric and Gas; Rochester
                                     Gas and Electric; and Central
                                     Hudson Gas and Electric.
Lincoln...........................  City of Lincoln, Nebraska d/b/a
                                     Lincoln Electric System.
MATL..............................  MATL LLP.
Midwest Energy....................  Midwest Energy, Inc.
MISO..............................  Midcontinent Independent System
                                     Operator, Inc.
NaturEner.........................  NaturEner USA, LLC and its
                                     subsidiaries.
NEPOOL............................  New England Power Pool Participants
                                     Committee.
NERC..............................  North American Electric Reliability
                                     Corporation.
NextEra...........................  NextEra Energy, Inc.
PG&E..............................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Public Interest Organizations.....  Center for Rural Affairs; Clean
                                     Wisconsin; Great Plains Institute;
                                     Natural Resources Defense Council;
                                     Sierra Club; Sustainable FERC
                                     Project; Western Grid Group; Wind
                                     on the Wires.
SCE...............................  Southern California Edison Company.
SDG&E.............................  San Diego Gas and Electric Company.
Six Cities........................  Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning,
                                     Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside,
                                     California.
Union of Concerned Scientists.....  Union of Concerned Scientists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-14764 Filed 6-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6740-6741]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02015]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614; FRL-9771-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley United Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley United Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in
the Federal Register on November 5, 2012 and concerns volatile organic
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and particulate
matter (PM) emissions from glass melting furnaces. We are approving a
local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on March 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66429), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD................................         4354  Limiting Emissions from Glass       05/19/11     09/27/11
                                                        Melting Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this because we determined that it complied
with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more
information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the
California SIP.

IV. 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 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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.
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2013. 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph(c)(404)(i)(D) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (404) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4354, ``Glass Melting Furnaces,'' amended on May 19, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-02015 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58795-58798]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84599; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2018-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule Applicable to its
Equities Trading Platform

November 15, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2018, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to
its equities trading platform.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed

any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule, effective November
1, 2018, to (i) amend transaction fee rates, (ii) amend the definition
for fee code MT, (iii) adopt new Add and Remove Volume Tiers, (iv)
amend the threshold under the RMPT/RMPL Tier, and (v) adopt a new
Routing Tier.
Transaction Fee Changes
Orders That Add Liquidity
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
charges a fee of $0.00080 per share for Displayed and Non-Displayed
orders that add liquidity. All Displayed and Non-Displayed orders in
securities priced below $1.00 that add liquidity are free. The Exchange
first proposes to increase this transaction fee and assess a standard
rate of $0.0030 per share for Displayed and Non-Displayed orders that
add liquidity for securities at or above $1.00 that are appended with
fee codes B, V, Y, 3, 4, RP, HA, DA, and DM. The Exchange notes that it
is not proposing to increase the fee for Non-Displayed orders that add
liquidity using Mid-Point Peg, which orders yield fee code MM. All
Displayed and Non-Displayed orders in securities priced below $1.00
that add liquidity would continue to be free.
Orders That Remove Liquidity
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
provides a rebate of $0.00040 per share for Displayed orders that
remove liquidity (i.e., yields fee codes N, W, 6 and BB) and provides
free executions for Non-Displayed orders that remove liquidity (i.e.,
yields fee codes DR, DT, HR, and MT). All Displayed and Non-Displayed
orders in securities priced below $1.00 that remove liquidity are
currently free, with the exception of orders that yield fee codes HR
and MT, which result in a fee of 0.05% of dollar value.
    With respect to Displayed orders priced at or above $1.00 that
remove liquidity, the Exchange proposes to increase the per share
rebate from $0.00040 to $0.0024 (i.e., yields fee codes N, W, 6, or
BB). All Displayed orders in securities priced below $1.00 would
continue to be free.
    With respect to Non-Displayed orders priced at or above $1.00 that
remove liquidity, the Exchange proposes to offer a $0.0024 per share
rebate for Non-Displayed orders that remove liquidity using MidPoint
Discretionary order not within discretionary range (i.e., yields fee
code DR).
    With respect to the Non-Displayed orders priced below $1.00 that
remove liquidity (i.e., yields fee code HR) and removes liquidity using
MidPoint Peg (i.e., yields fee code MT \3\), the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the current fee of 0.05% of dollar value and make these
executions free, which will result in all Non-Displayed orders in
securities priced below $1.00 being treated the same (i.e., no fees or
rebates assessed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange is proposing to amend the definition of orders
that yield fee code MT, as further described in this rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Code MT
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the definition of fee code MT.
Currently, fee code MT is appended to all Non-Displayed orders that
remove liquidity using Mid Point Peg order type.\4\ The Exchange
proposes to modify the types of orders that yield fee code MT, such
that fee code MT will be appended to all orders that remove Mid-Point
Peg Order liquidity (``Mid-Point Peg liquidity'') from EDGA, (i.e., any
order for which a Mid-Point Peg order that adds liquidity (fee code MM)
is the contra). The Exchange notes that the proposed amended definition
for the MT fee code is the same as the definition (i.e., configuration)
for the same fee code (MT) on its affiliate exchange, Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe EDGA Rule 11.8(d). Mid-Point Peg Orders are non-
displayed Market Orders or Limit Orders with an instruction to
execute at the midpoint of the NBBO, or, alternatively, pegged to
the less aggressive of the midpoint of the NBBO or one minimum price
variation inside the same side of the NBBO as the order.
    \5\ See Cboe BYX Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and
Associated Fees, fee code MT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add/Remove Volume Tiers
    The Exchange next proposes to adopt an Add Volume Tier, Tier 1 and
Remove Volume Tier, Tier 1 (under new footnote 7). Particularly,
proposed Add Volume Tier 1 would provide a reduced fee of $0.0026 per
share for members that add an ADAV of greater than or equal to 0.10% of
the TCV \6\ for orders that add liquidity yielding fee codes 3, 4, B, v
and Y. The Exchange proposes to also add language in its Definitions
section defining ``ADAV''. Specifically, ADAV shall mean average daily
added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day.\7\ The
Exchange notes that the proposed definition of ADAV is similar to
definitions at other Exchanges, such as its affiliate Exchange, Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''). Additionally, BYX has a similar Add
Volume Tiers that require members to reach ADAV thresholds of the
TCV.\8\ The Exchange believes the proposed change will encourage
members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume
reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply. See Exchange's fee schedule.
    \7\ Like ADV (which means average daily volume calculated as the
number of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange
(or any subset thereof), ADAV will be calculated on a monthly basis.
Additionally, as with ADV, the Exchange will exclude from its
calculation of ADAV shares added, removed, or routed on any day that
the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more
than 60 minutes during Regular Trading Hours, on any day with a
scheduled early market close, and on the last Friday in June. A
member will be able to aggregate ADAV (and ADV) with other Members
that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with
such Member).
    \8\ See Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Remove Volume Tier 1, which would
provide an enhanced rebate of $0.0026 per share for members that (1)
has an ADAV of greater than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV and (2) has a
remove ADV \9\ greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV for orders
that remove liquidity yielding fee codes N, W, 6 and BB. The Exchange
believes the proposed tier will encourage members to increase their
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that other exchanges
have similar volume tiers with similar requirements.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ADV means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis. See Exchange's fee schedule.
    \10\ See Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'') Rule 7018, Nasdaq BX Equities
System Order Execution and Routing, which provides a credit for
orders that meet thresholds relating to accessing liquidity and
adding liquidity. See also Cboe BYX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule, Volume Tier 8 under Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed volume requirements under both
Add and Remove Volume Tiers 1 are commensurate with the level of the
incentives provided.
Amend RMPT/RMPL Tier
    The Exchange currently offers a tier under footnote 1, the RMPT/
RMPL Tier under which a Member receives a discounted fee of $0.0008 per
share for orders yielding fee code PX where that Member meets certain
required criteria.

Fee code PX is appended to orders that are routed using the RMPL
routing strategy to a destination not covered by fee code PL, or are
routed using the RMPT routing strategy, and are assessed a fee of
$0.00120 per share on securities priced over $1.00, and a fee of 30% of
the total dollar value on securities priced below $1.00. Under Tier 1,
a Member is charged a discounted fee of $0.0008 per share for orders
yielding fee code PX where they add or remove an ADV greater than or
equal to 4,000,000 shares using the RMPT or RMPL \11\ routing
strategies (i.e., yielding fee codes PA, PL, PT and PX). The Exchange
proposes amend the ADV requirement of Tier 1 from greater or equal to
4,000,000 shares to 2,000,000 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe EDGA Rule 11.11(g)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopt ROUT Tier
    The Exchange proposes to also adopt a new routing tier for orders
routed using the ROUT strategy \12\ (``ROUT Tier''), under Footnote 1
of the Fees Schedule. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to offer a
discounted fee of $0.0026 per share for orders yielding fee code RT
where that Member meets certain required criteria. Fee code RT is
appended to orders that are routed using the ROUT routing strategy, and
are assessed a fee of $0.00280 per share on securities priced over
$1.00, and a fee of 30% of the total dollar value on securities priced
below $1.00. The Exchange proposes to provide that under ROUT Tier 1, a
Member will be charged a discounted fee of $0.0026 per share for orders
yielding fee code RT where the Member routes an ADV than or equal to
3,000,000 shares using routing strategy ROUT (i.e., yielding fee codes
RT and RX).\13\ In connection the proposed changes, the Exchange
proposes to also change the title of Footnote 1 from ``RMPT/RMPL
Tiers'' to ``Routing Tiers'' to address both the RMPT/RMPL Tier and the
new proposed ROUT Tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe EDGA Rule 11.11(g)(3).
    \13\ Pursuant to the Fees Schedule, variable rates provided by
tiers apply only to executions in securities priced at or above
$1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to increase rates for Non-
Displayed and Displayed orders that add liquidity (other than orders
that yield fee code MM) is reasonable because the Exchange must balance
the cost of rebates for orders that remove liquidity (and as described
above, the Exchange is increasing the rebates provided for orders that
remove liquidity). Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed
fee is similar to, and in line with, transaction fees assessed on other
Exchanges.\14\ Additionally the Exchange notes the proposed fee
increase applies uniformly to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities, Fees and Charges, NYSE Arca
Marketplace: Trade Related Fees and Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed increased rebate for Displayed
orders that remove liquidity is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it provides a higher rebate to members and is
designed to further incentivize members to bring additional liquidity
to the Exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and enhancing order
execution opportunities for members. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
apply equally to all members. Furthermore, the Exchange's inverted fee
structure would continue to incentivize liquidity takers since orders
that remove liquidity would remain eligible for better pricing--
including increased rebates for displayed orders and free executions
for non-displayed orders--than orders that add liquidity and are
charged a fee.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a rebate for orders
that remove liquidity using MidPoint Discretionary Orders not within
discretionary range (i.e., orders yielding fee code DR) is reasonable
because it provides a rebate to members for these executions they were
not otherwise receiving. Additionally, the Exchange notes the proposed
rebate is the same as the rebate offered for Displayed orders that
remove liquidity. The Exchange notes the proposed rule change applies
uniformly to all members.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to provide free executions for
orders priced below $1.00 and yielding fee codes HR and MT is
reasonable, because members will no longer be assessed any fees for
these particular transactions. The Exchange also notes the proposed
change results in all Non-Displayed orders in securities priced below
$1.00 being treated the same (i.e., no fees or rebates assessed). The
proposed change also applies equally to all members.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the definition for fee
code MT is reasonable because orders that currently yield fee code MT
(i.e., Non-Displayed Mid-Point Peg orders that remove liquidity) will
continue to receive free executions, as going forward they will be
appended with either fee code HR (i.e., Non-displayed orders that
remove liquidity), if contra to any order that adds liquidity other
than Mid-Point Peg orders, or MT (i.e., an order that removes Mid-Point
order liquidity), if contra to a Mid-Point Peg order that adds
liquidity. Additionally, the proposed rule change is reasonable because
all Displayed and Non-Displayed orders that remove a Non-Displayed Mid-
Point Peg Order will also receive a free execution. The proposed rule
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies
to all members. Additionally, as noted above, the proposed definition
of fee code MT is the same as the definition used on another
exchange.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Cboe BYX Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and
Associated Fees, fee code MT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt an Add and Remove
Volume Tier, along with a ROUT Tier, is reasonable because it provides
members an opportunity to receive a reduced fee or enhanced rebate,
depending on the Tier. The Exchange additionally notes that volume-
based discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable
and non-discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal
basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to (i) the value of an exchange's market quality; (ii)
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction
of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery
processes. The proposed required criteria of the Volume Tiers are
intended to incentivize Members to send additional orders to the
Exchange in an effort to qualify for the reduce fee and enhanced rebate
made available by the respective tiers. The Exchange also notes that
increased volume on the Exchange provides greater trading opportunities
for all market participants. As noted previously, the Exchange also
believes the proposed required criteria under the Add and Remove Volume
Tiers 1 and ROUT Tier are commensurate with the level of the incentives
provided.
    The Exchange believe that the amendment to the RMPL/RMPT Tier is
reasonable and equitable because the amount of the discounted fee is
not changing and because the amendment to the required criteria is
designed to make it easier for market participants to

satisfy the tier and thus receive a discounted rate. The Exchange also
believes notwithstanding the proposed change, RMPL/RMPT Tier 1 still
attracts additional midpoint liquidity to the Exchange, resulting in
increased price improvement opportunities for orders seeking an
execution at the midpoint of the NBBO on the Exchange or elsewhere. The
Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed routing tier change is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all members.

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.
Particularly, the proposed rates and rebates would apply uniformly to
all members, and members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve
to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members
rather than burdening competition. Moreover, the proposed fee changes
are designed to incentivize liquidity, which the Exchange believes will
benefit all market participants by encouraging a transparent and
competitive market. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow
to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.

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

    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
thereunder.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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-CboeEDGA-2018-017 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-CboeEDGA-2018-017. 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 this filing will also 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. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2018-017 and should be
submitted on or before December 12, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25340 Filed 11-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P