[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57020-57026]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18048]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0089; FRL-10213-01-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Hampton Roads Area

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
Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth or Virginia). This revision
pertains to the Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), for maintaining the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to
as the 1997 ozone NAAQS) in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News
(Hampton Roads), VA Area (Hampton Roads Area or Area). This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2023-0089 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Om P. Devkota, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Devkota can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 9, 2022, the VADEQ submitted a
revision to the Virginia SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS through December 31, 2032 in accordance with CAA
section 175A.

I. Background

    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. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ 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. EPA set the 1997 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.070 ppm. 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 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
the Hampton Roads Area as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The 1997 Hampton Roads Ozone Maintenance Area includes the
counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, and York, as well as
the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson,
Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg.
    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
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 standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2007 (72 FR 30490), EPA approved a redesignation request
(and maintenance plan) from VADEQ for the Hampton Roads Area. EPA
published final approval of the redesignation request and maintenance
plan on June 1, 2007 (72 FR 30490), and, as of that time, the area was
designated as attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In accordance with
CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective
date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second
maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an
additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the revocation of the
1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were not required for
``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the

Hampton Roads Area) that had been redesignated to attainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the
1997 ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance \5\ that provides further insight on the content
of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) an attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo \6\
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 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 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent
guidance memos describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \7\ that
the requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that
the area's design value \8\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, 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. Accordingly, on September 9, 2022, VADEQ
submitted the Hampton Roads Area second maintenance plan, following the
LMP guidance, and demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997
ozone NAAQS through December 31, 2032, i.e., through the entire second
maintenance period. Starting from January 1, 2033, after this
maintenance plan expires, the Area will no longer be bound by the
general conformity requirements and transportation conformity
requirements outlined in section 176 of the CAA. However, any other
control programs will continue to be in effect, unless there is
evidence to show that they are unnecessary for complying with the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994.
    \6\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
    \7\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (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.
    \8\ 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 nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    VADEQ's September 9, 2022 SIP submittal outlines a plan for
continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the
criteria set forth in the 1992 Calcagni memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone
formation. In the first maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area,
VADEQ used 2005 for the attainment year inventory, because 2005 was one
of the years in the 2003-2005 three-year period when the area first
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\9\ The Hampton Roads Area continued to
monitor attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2016. Therefore, the
emissions inventory from 2016 represents emissions levels conducive to
continued attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS.\10\ Thus, VADEQ
is using 2016 as representing attainment level emissions for its second
maintenance plan. Virginia used 2016 summer day emissions from EPA's
2016 version 2.0 modeling platform \11\ as the basis for the 2016
inventory presented in Table 1 in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For more information, see EPA's June 1, 2007 ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Redesignation of the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory'' (72 FR 30490).
    \10\ The design values for the Hampton Roads maintenance area
for each of the three-year averages containing 2016 are 0.064 ppm
for 2014-2016, 0.065 ppm for 2015-2017, and 0.064 ppm for 2016-2018.
Since these values are well beneath the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 0.08
ppm, the 2016 emissions inventory is a suitable inventory to use as
an attainment inventory for this second maintenance plan.
    \11\ For more information, visit www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.

            Table 1--2016 Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions (tons/day) for Hampton Roads Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX emissions
                     Name                                Source category           VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucester County.............................  Point...........................          0.0690          0.4076
                                                Nonpoint........................          2.1190          0.1218
                                                Onroad..........................          0.7055          1.0346
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.0918          3.2830
Isle of Wight County..........................  Point...........................          0.8257          1.4711
                                                Nonpoint........................          1.1699          0.4066
                                                Onroad..........................          0.7703          1.4166
                                                Nonroad.........................          0.5220          0.5769
James City County.............................  Point...........................          0.3748          1.3513
                                                Nonpoint........................          2.1067          0.4862
                                                Onroad..........................          0.8237          1.7141
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.0240          1.5179

York County...................................  Point...........................          1.7402         12.8452
                                                Nonpoint........................          2.9341          0.2426
                                                Onroad..........................          0.8814          1.8463
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.5854          1.0722
City of Chesapeake............................  Point...........................          1.6099          2.7698
                                                Nonpoint........................          9.3508          1.4014
                                                Onroad..........................          2.8211          5.1701
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.9042          3.0290
City of Hampton...............................  Point...........................          0.1701          0.1629
                                                Nonpoint........................          3.2443          0.3825
                                                Onroad..........................          1.6943          2.8409
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.1797          5.0726
City of Newport News..........................  Point...........................          1.3226          3.1034
                                                Nonpoint........................          6.5468          2.1701
                                                Onroad..........................          2.0997          3.3499
                                                Nonroad.........................          2.0554          0.9644
City of Norfolk...............................  Point...........................          1.4293          2.7084
                                                Nonpoint........................          8.3975          1.0968
                                                Onroad..........................          2.6110          4.3803
                                                Nonroad.........................          1.7455          6.4235
City of Poquoson..............................  Point...........................            0.00            0.00
                                                Nonpoint........................          0.2597          0.0245
                                                Onroad..........................          0.1318          0.1137
                                                Nonroad.........................          0.2712          0.1425
City of Portsmouth............................  Point...........................          0.0177          3.7311
                                                Nonpoint........................          3.9935          0.3437
                                                Onroad..........................          1.2541          1.6801
                                                Nonroad.........................          0.4959          0.3991
City of Suffolk...............................  Point...........................          0.0478          0.0427
                                                Nonpoint........................          2.5712          0.6950
                                                Onroad..........................          1.1467          3.1387
                                                Nonroad.........................          0.6860          1.4919
City of Virginia Beach........................  Point...........................          3.1577          0.6830
                                                Nonpoint........................         12.4218          1.4933
                                                Onroad..........................          5.2219          6.3737
                                                Nonroad.........................          4.0864          5.4491
City of Williamsburg..........................  Point...........................            0.00            0.00
                                                Nonpoint........................          0.3454          0.0984
                                                Onroad..........................          0.1810          0.1919
                                                Nonroad.........................          0.1640          0.1363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Table 1 in this document is based on the 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2.\12\ The inventory
addresses four anthropogenic emission source categories: Stationary
(point) sources, stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile,
and onroad mobile sources. Point sources are stationary sources that
have the potential to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of
VOC, or more than 50 tpy of NOX, and which are required to
obtain an operating permit. Data are collected for each source at a
facility and reported to VADEQ. Examples of point sources include
municipal solid waste incinerators, landfills, and electric generating
units. Nonpoint sources include emissions from equipment, operations,
and activities that are numerous and in total have significant
emissions. Examples include emissions from commercial and consumer
products, residential wood combustion, home heating, and small
commercial operations such as vehicle refinishing. The onroad emissions
sector includes emissions from engines used primarily to propel
equipment on highways and other roads, including passenger vehicles,
motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The nonroad emissions sector
includes emissions from engines that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment. Examples of equipment in the nonroad category
include lawn equipment, construction equipment, commercial shipping,
locomotives, and pleasure craft. EPA reviewed the emissions inventory
submitted by VADEQ and proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory
is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value or
``DV'') 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
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 ``Resource Document
for 1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States
Developing Maintenance Plans'' (2018

Resource Document),\13\ EPA believes that if the most recent DV for the
area is well below the NAAQS (i.e., below 85%, or in this case below
0.071 ppm), the section 175A demonstration requirement has been met,
provided that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and any Federal
measures remain in place through the end of the second maintenance
period (absent a showing consistent with section 110(1) that such
measures are not necessary to assure maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2023-0089 and is also available at /www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS, VADEQ provided 3-year DVs for the Hampton Roads Area
from 2001 to 2021. This includes DVs for 2001-2003, 2002-2004, 2003-
2005, 2004-2006, 2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011,
2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, 2016-
2018, 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021. 2007-2009 through 2019-2021
are shown in Table 2 of this document.\14\ In addition, EPA has
reviewed the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone
in the Hampton Roads Area, as submitted by Virginia and recorded in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The most recent DV (i.e., 2019-2021) at
monitors located in the Hampton Roads Area are also shown in Table 2 of
this rulemaking action.\15\ There currently are three operating ozone
monitoring sites in the Hampton Roads Area, two in Suffolk City
(monitors 518000004 and 518000005) and one in Hampton City (monitor
516500008). As can be seen in Table 2 in this document, DVs at all
monitors located in the Hampton Roads Area have been well below 85% of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2012-2014 period. The
highest DV for the 2019-2021 period at a monitor in the Hampton Roads
Area is 0.058 ppm, which is well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See also Figure-2 and Table 3 of VADEQ's September 9, 2022
submittal, ``Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan
Revision Second Maintenance Plan 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Hampton Roads Maintenance Area,'' included in the
docket for this rulemaking available online at /www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0089.
    \15\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2023-0089 and is also available at www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

       Table 2--Recent 1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppm) at Monitoring Sites in the Hampton Roads Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Jurisdiction                             Hampton City    Suffolk City    Suffolk City
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           AQS site ID                               516500008       518000004       518000005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2009.......................................................  ..............           0.072           0.073
2008-2010.......................................................  ..............           0.071           0.072
2009-2011.......................................................  ..............           0.071           0.070
2010-2012 \16\..................................................           0.076           0.073           0.071
2011-2013.......................................................           0.072           0.070           0.068
2012-2014.......................................................           0.067           0.064           0.065
2013-2015.......................................................           0.064           0.061           0.062
2014-2016.......................................................           0.064           0.060           0.061
2015-2017.......................................................           0.065           0.061           0.059
2016-2018.......................................................           0.064           0.062           0.059
2017-2019.......................................................           0.062           0.060           0.058
2018-2020.......................................................           0.058           0.058           0.056
2019-2021.......................................................           0.058           0.056           0.056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends.
According to EPA's 2018 Resource Document, several kinds of analyses
can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing. One approach
is to take the most recent DV for the area and add the maximum DV
increase (over one or more consecutive years) that has been observed in
the area over the past several years. For an area with multiple
monitors, the highest of the most recent DVs should be used. A sum that
does not exceed the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may be a good
indicator of expected continued attainment. As shown in Table 2 in this
document, the largest DV increase in the Hampton Roads Area was 0.002
ppm, which occurred between the 2009-2011 (0.071 ppm) and 2010-2012
(0.073 ppm) design value periods at one of the monitors located in
Suffolk City (AQS ID 518000004). Adding 0.002 ppm to the highest DV for
the 2019-2021 period (0.058 ppm at the Hampton City monitor AQS ID
516500008) results in 0.060 ppm, a sum that is still below the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ AQS site 516500008's design values were first available in
2010-2012 as this new site replaced a different Hampton City
monitoring site that is no longer in existence. For more information
see www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DVs at all monitors located in the Hampton Roads Area have been
below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2012-2014
period. Additional supporting information that the Area is expected to
continue to maintain the standard can be found in projections of future
year DVs that EPA recently completed to assist states with the
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show that the highest
DV at a monitor located in the Hampton Roads Area is expected to be
0.058 ppm.\17\ The Hampton Roads Area has maintained the air quality
levels well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained
the NAAQS in the 2003-2005 timeframe.\18\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that future violations of the

1997 ozone NAAQS in the Hampton Roads Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/aq_modelingtsd_updated_2023_modeling_o3_dvs.pdf.
    \18\ As explained in EPA's April 13, 2007 document proposing
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Redesignation of the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated
Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS'' (72 FR 18602), the 2003-2005 average DV for the Hampton
Roads Area was 0.078 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the
September 9, 2022 submittal, VADEQ commits to continue to operate their
air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. VADEQ also
commits to track the attainment status of the Hampton Roads Area for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions
data during the second maintenance period. EPA has analyzed the
commitments in VADEQ's submittal and is proposing to determine that
they meet the requirements for continued air quality monitoring and
verification of continued attainment.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the
CAA.
    VADEQ's September 9, 2022 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the Hampton Roads Area. Virginia has pledged to execute all actions
related to the regulation of NOX and VOC contained in the
SIP for the Hampton Roads area before redesignation to attainment and
demonstration of maintenance status. Once the maintenance plan expires
on December 31, 2032,\19\ general conformity and transportation
conformity requirements will not be applicable anymore. To avoid future
violation of ozone NAAQS,\20\ the maintenance plan has included
contingency measures that VADEQ will implement if triggered under two
main scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The first plan for the Hampton Roads 1997 ozone NAAQS
maintenance area used an end year of 2018. Therefore, this second
maintenance plan must remain effective through December 31, 2028 at
a minimum. Virginia chose an end year of 2032 for this second
maintenance plan based on the availability of inventory information
for that year. Since 2032 served as the end year of Virginia's
projected maintenance demonstration inventory, the plan should
remain effective through December 31, 2032. For more information,
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/documents/fact_sheet_1997_ozone_maintenance_areas_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
    \20\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year
design value exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, if there is an actual increase in the emissions of VOC or
NOX above the inventory of the attainment year, such surges
will be detected or predicted through the development of a
comprehensive period tracking inventory, such as the NEI. Tracking this
information is important because an increase in emissions of VOC and
NOX above the attainment year inventory could be an early
warning sign of a possible NAAQS exceedance or violation. VADEQ will
track the observed growth rates for vehicle miles traveled, population,
and point source VOC and NOX emissions annually.
Comprehensive tracking of inventories as part of the NEI will also be
developed in collaboration with EPA every three years using current
EPA-approved methods for estimating emissions. In the improbable event
that estimated emissions in the Hampton Roads Area increase above the
attainment year budget, VADEQ will perform a complete VOC and
NOX emissions inventory assessment. If this analysis
indicates that regional emissions of NOX or VOC surpass the
attainment year levels, VADEQ will put in place one or more control
measures which are mentioned in Table 3 of this document but are not
yet implemented.
    Second, VADEQ will use recorded ozone readings to monitor for ozone
NAAQS exceedances and violations. The 1997 ozone NAAQS is exceeded when
an annual fourth-highest, eight-hour average of 0.085 ppm or higher is
recorded by any ozone monitor in the area. In the unlikely event that
monitor registers an exceedance, VADEQ will implement one yet
unimplemented control measure listed in Table 3 in this document. The
1997 ozone NAAQS is violated when a three-year average of each annual
fourth-highest, eight-hour average of 0.085 ppm or higher is recorded
by any ozone monitor in the area. In the unlikely event that a monitor
registers a violation, VADEQ will implement one yet unimplemented
control measure listed in Table 3 in this document. If an ozone monitor
registers a second violation after the implementation of a contingency
measure in response to the first violation, VADEQ will implement one
additional yet unimplemented control listed in Table 3 in this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Model Rule Preamble: Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings at otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/AIM_Preamble_Model_Rule.pdf.
    \22\ OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products available at
otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/OTC%20CP%20Model%20Rule%20Final%20Clean%202013%20Revision%20Clean.pdf
.
    \23\ OTC Model Rule for Solvent Degreasing 2012 available at
otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/2011%20OTC%20Model%20Rule%20for%20Solvent%20Degreasing.pdf.

Table 3--Hampton Roads Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Program                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTC Architectural and Industrial (AIM)   Rule provides additional
 Coating Model Rule dated October 13,     requirements reducing
 2014 \21\.                               emissions from the AIM source
                                          category.
OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products     Rule provides additional
 dated May 21, 2013 \22\.                 requirements reducing
                                          emissions from the Consumer
                                          Product source category.
OTC Model Rule for Solvent Degreasing    Rule provides additional
 dated 2012 \23\.                         requirements reducing
                                          emissions from the solvent
                                          degreasing category.
Article 51 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40,          Application of NOX Reasonably
 Emission Standards for Stationary        Available Control Technology
 Sources Subject to Case-by-Case RACT     (RACT) on facilities with a
 Determinations.                          potential to emit of at least
                                          100 tpy NOX.
Article 51 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40,          Application of VOC RACT on
 Emission Standards for Stationary        facilities with a potential to
 Sources Subject to Case-by-Case RACT     emit of at least 100 tpy VOC.
 Determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following schedule applies to contingency measures should they
need to be implemented due to exceedances or violations of the 1997
ozone NAAQS:
    [ssquf] Notification received from EPA that a contingency measure
must be implemented or three months after a recorded exceedance or
violation is certified.
    [ssquf] Applicable regulation to be adopted 6 months after this
date.
    [ssquf] Applicable regulation to be implemented 6 months after
adoption.
    [ssquf] Compliance with regulation to be achieved within 12 months
of adoption.
    EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in VADEQ's
September 9, 2022 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA
section 175A(d). EPA also finds that the submittal acknowledges
Virginia's continuing requirement to implement all pollution control
measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
Hampton Roads Area to attainment.

E. Transportation 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 (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not 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 vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
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 (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). 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
determination, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113).
    Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs, must be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
transportation plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is
demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40
CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved, they must come
from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115). The
Hampton Roads Area remains under the obligation to meet the applicable
conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of VADEQ's September 9, 2022 submittal indicates that
Hampton Roads Area second maintenance plan meets the CAA section 175A
and all applicable CAA requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the
second maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads Area as a revision to the
Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.
10.11198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents
and information about the content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does
not extend to documents or information that: (1) are generated or
developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental
assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.11198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.11199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998, opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot

have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time
invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule pertaining to Virginia's 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the
Hampton Roads Area does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    VADEQ did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part
of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ
is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in
the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-18048 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 March 26, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Air Docket OAR 2003 0012 FROM: William Charmley Engineer Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. EPA SUBJECT: Summary of Conference Calls with the Engine Manufacturers Association on July 1, 14, and 17, 2003 regarding Nonroad Tier 4 Proposal On July 1, July 14, and July 17, 2003, representatives from EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA) participated in a series of conference calls to discuss EPA's nonroad diesel Tier 4 proposal. A list of the participants for each of these calls is attached.

The following topics were discussed during the meeting;

July 1, 2003 Conference Call  not to exceed standard and implementation requirements  emission standards for nonroad engines > 750 hp  implementation dates for Tier 4 standards for the 75 175 hp category  optional Tier 4 emission standards for the 50 75 hp range July 14, 2003 Conference Call ( all topics were specific to engines > 750 hp)  transient test cycle requirements and standards  NTE requirements  NOx emission standards and implementation dates  PM emission standards and implementation dates  Differences between > 750 mobile machines and generators July 17, 2003 Conference Call ( all topics were specific to engines > 750 hp)  NOx emission standards and implementation dates  PM emission standards and implementation dates  Differences between > 750 mobile machines and generators attachments: Attendees List Attachment: Attendees List EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, July 1, 2003 EMA Participants Jed Mandel, EMA EPA Participants Chet France, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, July 14, 2003 EMA Participants Jed Mandel, EMA Bill Passie, Caterpillar John Gladden, Caterpillar Bob Jorgenson, Cummins Inc. Todd Hendricks, Cummins Inc. John Duerr, Detroit Diesel Corp.

EPA Participants Chet France, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Don Kopinski, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, July 17, 2003 EMA Participants Jed Mandel, EMA John Gladden, Caterpillar Bob Jorgenson, Cummins Inc. Todd Hendricks, Cummins Inc. John Duerr, Detroit Diesel Corp.

EPA Participants Don Kopinski, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70865-70866]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0837; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-17]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Driggs, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Driggs, ID to
accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Driggs-Reed
Memorial Airport. This action also updates the airport name and adjusts
the geographic coordinates of the airport. This improves the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On September 13, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to modify controlled airspace at Driggs,
ID (76 FR 56356). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, at Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, to accommodate IFR
aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
at the airport. This also changes the airport formerly known as Teton
Peaks/Driggs Municipal Airport to Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, and
adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety
and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A,
subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, Driggs,
ID.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 Driggs, ID [Modified]

Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, ID
    (Lat. 43[deg]44'34'' N., long. 111[deg]05'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10.4-mile radius of Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, and
within 4.5 miles either side of the 344[deg] bearing of the airport
extending from the 10.4-mile radius to 14.8 miles northwest of
Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport, and within 2 miles west and 5.4 miles
east of the 208[deg] bearing of the airport extending from the 10.4-
mile radius to 13 miles south of Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 4, 2011.
Robert Henry,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-29639 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50640-50641]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-88-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Gila
River Power LLC.

    Description: Response to Request for Additional Information of
Tucson Electric Power Company, et. al.
    Filed Date: 8/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140814-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG14-85-000.
    Applicants: Green Pastures Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status for Green Pastures Wind I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-86-000.
    Applicants: Avalon Solar Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Avalon Solar Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1984-000.
    Applicants: AEP Energy Partners, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to May 19, 2014 Application for
Authorization to make affiliate sales with Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation of AEP Energy Partners, Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140814-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2203-001.
    Applicants: Limon Wind, LLC.
    Description: Limon Wind, LLC Amendment to Order No. 784 Compliance
Filing to be effective 6/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140814-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2286-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-08-15--ATC D-T Update Batch 2 Amend--Resubmittal
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2658-000.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 792 Compliance Filing--Attachment O to
be effective 8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2659-000.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: OATT Revisions to Attachment N to be effective 8/4/
2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2660-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Exelon EIM Participation Construction Agreement to be
effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2661-000.
    Applicants: Illinois Power Marketing Company.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/16/
2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA14-5-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Application of DTE Electric Company continued waiver
of the requirements of Order Nos. 888, 889, and 890, their implementing
regulations and Part 358 of the Commission's regulations.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: August 15, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20094 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53120-53121]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-117-000.
    Applicants: Louisiana Generating LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Louisiana Generating LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110816-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2627-004.
    Applicants: FirstLight Hydro Generating Company.
    Description: FirstLight Hydro Generating Company submits tariff
filing per: FL Hydro Supplement to the Record to be effective 8/16/
2011.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110816-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3650-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment to 607R13 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be
effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110816-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4310-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: G479b Errata Filing to be effective
8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110815-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4317-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110815-5209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-2-000.
    Applicants: Goshen Phase II LLC.
    Description: Goshen Phase II LLC Quarterly Land Acquisition Report.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110816-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21687 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81832-81833]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27743]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79305; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Fees for Use of Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.

November 14, 2016.
    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, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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 to: (i) Delete
references to the ROOC routing strategy, which was previously, removed
from the Exchange's rulebook; \6\ and (ii) increase the fees associate
for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 that yield fee codes
RT, RX, or Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release N. 75550 (July 29,
2015), 80 FR 46363 (August 4, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-28). See also BATS
EDGA Exchange and BYX Exchange Decommissioning ROOC Effective August
10, 2015, available at http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/release_notes/2015/BATS-EDGA-Exchange-and-BYX-Exchange-Decommissioning-ROOC-Effective-August-10-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of References to the ROOC Routing Strategy
    The Exchange previously submitted a proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness to discontinue the ROOC routing strategy and to
remove references to the ROOC routing strategy from its rulebook.\7\
The Exchange now proposes to delete three references to the ROOC
routing strategy from its Fee Schedule, as those associated rates and
references have not been applicable since the Exchange discontinued the
ROOC routing strategy. These changes are to delete:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75550 (July
29, 2015), 80 FR 4636 (August 4, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fee code RN and its associate rates, which is appended to
orders routed to the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC using the ROOC routing
strategy and add liquidity.
     a reference to ROOC in fee code RT, which is appended to
orders routed using the ROUT or ROOC routing strategy; and
     a reference to the ROOC routing strategy in footnote 12,
which lists the routing strategies eligible for fee code CR.
Fee Codes RT, RX, and Z
    The Exchange also proposes to increase the fees associated with
orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 that yield fee codes RT,
RX, or Z.\8\ First the Exchange proposes to increase the fee for orders
yielding fee code RT, which are routed using a ROUT \9\ or ROOC \10\
routing strategy, from $0.00250 to $0.00260 per share. Second, the
Exchange proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code RX,
which are routed using a ROUX \11\ routing strategy, from $0.00270 to
$0.00280 per share. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee
for orders yielding fee code Z, which are routed to a non-exchange
destination using ROCO \12\ or ROUZ \13\ routing strategy, from
$0.00100 to $0.00120 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees for orders
yielding fee codes RT, RX, or Z in securities priced below $1.00.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that it is deleting reference to the
ROOC routing strategy in this filing. See also supra note 6.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule November 1, 2016.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\15\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of References to the ROOC Routing Strategy
    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to delete references to the ROOC routing strategy from
its Fee Schedule because it is removing reference and rates for a
product that the Exchange no longer provides.\16\ The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes will make the Fee Schedule clearer and
eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to
and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Codes RT, RX, and Z
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fee for
orders that yield fee codes RT, RX, or Z represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members
and other persons using its facilities in that they are designed in
part to cover the costs of routing. While the affected Members' orders
will be charged higher fees due to the proposal, the increased revenue
received by the Exchange will be used to fund the Exchange generally,
including the cost of maintaining and improving the technology used to
handle and route orders from the Exchange as well as programs that the
Exchange believes help to attract additional liquidity and thus improve
the depth of liquidity available on the Exchange. Accordingly, although
the cost of routing is increasing, the Exchange believes that he
increase is modest and that higher routing fees will benefit Members in
other ways. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that routing through the
Exchange is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the changes to fee codes
RT, RX, and Z represent a significant departure from previous pricing
offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the Exchange's
competitors. Additionally, 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. The Exchange
believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition
because the proposed rates would apply uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-26 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-BatsEDGA-2016-26. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2016-26, and should
be submitted on or before December 9, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27743 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P