[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19353]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3218-000]

Monterey MW, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Monterey MW, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 19, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8253 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56185-56186]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-502-000]

Commonwealth LNG, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review of the Commonwealth LNG Project

    On August 20, 2019, Commonwealth LNG, LLC (Commonwealth) filed an
application in Docket No. CP19-502-000 requesting an authorization
pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Parts 153 and
380 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission)
regulations to site, construct, and operate a natural gas liquefaction
and export facility and an associated natural gas pipeline in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. The proposed project is known as the Commonwealth
LNG Project and would produce up to 8.4 million tonnes per annum (MTPA)
of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export.
    On September 3, 2019, the Commission issued its Notice of
Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted
other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to
complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the
request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Commonwealth LNG Project. This instant notice identifies
the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for
the Commonwealth LNG Project, which is based on an issuance of the
draft EIS in May 2020.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS October 2, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline December 31, 2020

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Project Description

    Commonwealth proposes to construct and operate the new LNG export
facility and accompanying natural gas pipeline on the west side of the
Calcasieu Ship Channel at its entrance to the Gulf of Mexico. The LNG
export facility would consist of six natural gas liquefaction trains
(with nominal liquefaction and production capacities of 1.4 MTPA each),
six LNG storage tanks (with storage capacities of 40,000 cubic meters
each), and one marine berth capable of accommodating LNG carriers with
capacities up to 216,000 cubic meters. Commonwealth would construct a
30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from the LNG export facility,
extending 3.04 miles north to interconnect with existing natural gas
pipelines within Cameron Parish. The Commonwealth LNG Project would
require about 165 acres to construct and would occupy about 130 acres
during operation.

Background

    On August 15, 2017, the Commission staff granted Commonwealth's
request to use the FERC's pre-filing environmental review process and
assigned the Commonwealth LNG Project Docket No. PF17-8. On February
22, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Commonwealth LNG
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Session (NOI).
    The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Commonwealth
LNG Project and was sent to federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes and regional
organizations; commenters and other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping include
impacts on wetlands, migratory birds, and migratory bird habitat;
impacts on the ecological habitat of surrounding properties; impacts of
rerouted storm-surge on surrounding properties; and impacts on
recreational boating and fishing. All substantive comments will be
addressed in the EIS.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department
of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service are cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Commonwealth LNG Project is
available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866)
208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary''
link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the
selected date range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three
digits (i.e., CP19-502), and follow the instructions. For assistance
with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link
on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule
makings.

    Dated: October 15, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22887 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14612-14613]
[DOCID:fr31mr09-156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods;
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will
conduct a public meeting in preparation for the 35th session of the
United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods (UNSCOE TDG) to be held June 22-26, 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland.
During this meeting, PHMSA is also soliciting comments relative to
potential new work items which may be considered for inclusion in its
international agenda, and comments relative to a potential future
rulemaking action regarding the use and applicability of international
standards.

Information Regarding the UNSCOE TDG Meeting

DATES: Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the DOT Headquarters, West
Building, Oklahoma City Conference Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Conference Call Capability/Live Meeting Information: Conference
call-in and ``live meeting'' capability will be provided for this
meeting. Specific information on call-in and live meeting access will
be posted when available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/
international.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Duane Pfund, Director, Office of
International Standards or Mr. Shane Kelley, International
Transportation Specialist, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this meeting will be
to prepare for the 35th session of the UNSCOE TDG. The 35th session of
the UNSCOE TDG is the first meeting in the current 2009-2010 biennium.
The UNSCOE will consider proposals for the 16th Revised Edition of the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
Model Regulations which will come into force in the international
regulations from January 1, 2013. Topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE
TDG meeting include:
     Explosives and related matters;
     Listing, classification and packing;
     Electric storage systems;
     Miscellaneous proposals of amendments to the Model
Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods;
     Electronic data interchange (EDT) for documentation
purposes;
     Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA);
     Global harmonization of transport of dangerous goods
regulations with the UN Model Regulations;
     Guiding principles for the Model Regulations; and
     Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
    In addition, PHMSA is soliciting comments on how to further enhance
harmonization for international transport of hazardous materials. PHMSA
has finalized a broad international strategic plan and welcomes input
on items which stakeholders believe should be included as specific
initiatives within this plan. PHMSA's Office of International Standards
Strategic Plan can be accessed at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/
regs/intemational.
    Finally, PHMSA is soliciting comments regarding a potential future
rulemaking action regarding the use of international regulations, in
particular the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical
Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous

Goods by Air (ICAOTI) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods
Code (IMDG Code). PHMSA is considering proposing to mandate the use of
these regulations for the international transportation (see 49 CFR
171.8) of hazardous materials by aircraft or vessel. PHMSA requests
comments regarding this prospective proposal. PHMSA is interested in
comments including, but not limited to, comments related to the safety
and economic implications of mandating the use of these regulations for
international shipments, as well as implications to training of
personnel.
    The public is invited to attend without prior notification. Due to
the heightened security measures participants are encouraged to arrive
early to allow time for security checks necessary to obtain access to
the building. Following the 35th session of the UNSCOE TDG, PHMSA will
place a copy of the Sub-Committee's report and a summary of the results
on PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Safety Homepage at http://
www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international.

Documents

    Copies of documents for the UNSCOE TDG meeting and the meeting
agenda may be obtained by downloading them from the United Nations
Transport Division's Web site at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/
dgsubc/c32009.html. PHMSA's site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/
regs/international also provides additional information regarding the
UNSCOE TDG and related matters such as summaries of decisions taken at
previous sessions of the UNSCOE TDG.

Theodore L. Willke,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
 [FR Doc. E9-7042 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21495-21497]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5044; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-166-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, and
Model DHC-8-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of heat damage found on a nacelle firewall after
an unsuccessful engine ground start and several events of heat damage
found on direct current starter/generator terminal block assemblies.
This proposed AD would require an inspection for damage on the nacelle
firewalls and the terminal block assemblies and to make sure the
insulating sleeves are installed and have no damage, and corrective
action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent arcing between
the firewall and terminal blocks that are missing insulating sleeves on
the conductive bushings, which could, in combination with a fuel or
hydraulic fluid leak, be an ignition source for a fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5044; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will

be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-5044;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-166-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-03R1, dated July 24, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103,
and -106 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-200 and -300 series airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    There has been one in-service report of heat damage on a nacelle
firewall found after an unsuccessful engine ground start. There have
also been several reports of heat damage found on Direct Current
Starter/Generator terminal block assemblies, part number (P/N)
82450075-001.
    The investigation determined that in all cases, the heat damage
was caused by arcing between the firewall and terminal blocks with
missing insulating sleeves on the conductive bushings. The
insulating sleeves may have been inadvertently omitted during the
incorporation of Modsum 8/1926, or during the installation of
terminal blocks P/N 82450075-001.
    Arcing with the firewall becomes an ignition source, creating a
potential fire hazard when combined with a fuel or hydraulic fluid
leak.
    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the [detailed
visual] inspection [for damage to the nacelle firewalls and to make
sure the insulating sleeves are installed and have no damage] and
rectification [corrective actions such as installing or replacing
insulating sleeves, or replacing a terminal block], as required, of
the nacelle firewall and terminal block assembly P/N 82450075-001
installed with Modsum 8/1926.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to revise the
Applicability to ensure that the terminal blocks have the insulating
sleeves installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5044.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated
April 11, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection for damage on the nacelle firewalls and the terminal block
assemblies and to make sure the insulating sleeves are installed and
have no damage, and corrective action if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $12,750, or $170
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $551, for a cost of
$636 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-5044; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-166-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category, serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive, on which
terminal block part number 82450075-001 is installed.
    (1) Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes.
    (2) Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes.
    (3) Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of one event of heat damage
found on a nacelle firewall after an unsuccessful engine ground
start and several events of heat damage found on direct current
starter/generator terminal block assemblies. We are issuing this AD
to prevent arcing between the firewall and terminal blocks that are
missing insulating sleeves on the conductive bushings, which could,
in combination with a fuel or hydraulic fluid leak, be an ignition
source for a fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 2,500 flight cycles or 14 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a detailed visual
inspection of the right-hand side and left-hand side nacelle
firewalls and terminal block assemblies, as defined in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014.
    (1) If the inspection finds no damage on the engine firewalls
and the terminal blocks, and that the insulating sleeves are
installed on both terminal blocks, no further action is required by
this AD.
    (2) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed, or the existing sleeves are damaged, and there is no
damage to the nacelle firewall and terminal block, before further
flight, install the replacement insulating sleeves, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014.
    (3) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed, or any existing sleeve is damaged, and there is no damage
to the nacelle firewall, but there is damage to the terminal block,
before further flight, replace the terminal block assembly (which
includes insulating sleeves), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A,
dated April 11, 2014.
    (4) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed and there is damage to the nacelle firewall and the
terminal block, repair the damage using a method approved by the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, dated
September 25, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-03R1, dated July 24,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5044.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 26, 2016.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08266 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17557-17560]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66622, File No. SR-MSRB-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Amendments to Rule G-14, on Reports
of Sales or Purchases, Including the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and
Amendments to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System

March 20, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On January 20, 2012, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of amendments to Rule
G-14, Reports of Sales or Purchases, including the Rule G-14 RTRS
Procedures, and amendments to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting
System. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 8, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66309 (February 2,
2012), 77 FR 6615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of Proposal

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to Rule G-14,
Reports of Sales or Purchases, including the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures,
and amendments to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (``RTRS'')
information system and subscription service (the ``RTRS Facility'';
collectively, ``proposed rule change''). The proposed changes to Rule
G-14 would remove certain outdated information. The proposed changes to
the RTRS Facility would (A) remove certain outdated information and
amend certain definitions to reflect current system operating hours and
business days; (B) add an RTRS-calculated yield to the information
disseminated for inter-dealer transactions; (C) remove certain
infrequently used data reporting requirements; (D) require dealers to
submit dollar prices for certain trades; and (E) reduce the number of
customer trades suppressed from dissemination because of potentially
erroneous price/yield calculations. The MSRB proposes that the proposed
rule change be implemented in three phases, as further described
herein.
    Amendments to Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchases, and Rule
G-14 RTRS Procedures. MSRB Rule G-14 requires brokers, dealers, and
municipal securities dealers (collectively, ``dealers'') to report
certain information about each purchase and sale transaction effected
in municipal securities to RTRS. Such transaction information is made
available to the public, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') and certain federal bank regulatory agencies to
assist in the inspection for compliance with and enforcement of MSRB
rules. The reporting requirements are further outlined in Rule G-14
RTRS Procedures and the RTRS Users Manual.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures are included in the text of MSRB
Rule G-14, and the RTRS Users Manual is available on the MSRB Web
site at www.msrb.org. The RTRS Users Manual will be revised as
necessary to reflect the changes made by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule G-14 and the Rule G-14
RTRS Procedures to update certain references (such as references to the
National Association of Securities Dealers, the predecessor of FINRA);
eliminate certain provisions that are no longer relevant (such as
provisions relating to testing during the original RTRS start-up
period) or that, by their original terms, have expired; and conform
terms in certain definitions.
    Amendments to the RTRS Facility. The RTRS Facility provides for the
collection and dissemination of information about transactions
occurring in the municipal securities market, and requires dealers to
submit information about each purchase and sale transaction effected in
municipal securities. The proposed rule change would (A) remove certain
outdated information and reporting requirements and amend certain
definitions to reflect current system operating hours and business
days; (B) modify RTRS specifications to perform certain yield
calculations for inter-dealer transactions; (C) remove certain
infrequently used data reporting requirements; (D) require dealers to
submit dollar prices for certain trades; and (E) modify RTRS
specifications to reduce the number of trades suppressed from
dissemination because of erroneous price and yield calculations.
    Remove certain outdated information and conform definitions to
reflect current system operating hours and business days. The proposed
rule

change would remove references throughout the text of the RTRS Facility
to prior amendments to Rule G-14, to certain testing requirements and
to the implementation plan relevant to the initial phases of the RTRS
system; update current hours of operation; conform certain definitions
to reflect such change; and make non-substantive revisions to the
language of certain portions of the RTRS Facility to reflect the
passage of time since its initial approval.
    Yields on inter-dealer transactions. Inter-dealer transaction
reporting is accomplished by both the purchasing and selling dealers
submitting information about the transaction to the DTCC's real-time
trade matching system (``RTTM''). Information submitted to RTTM is
forwarded to RTRS for trade reporting. For most inter-dealer
transactions, dealers report final money, par amount and accrued
interest to RTTM--as opposed to a dollar price and yield \5\ as is done
for customer trades--and RTRS computes a dollar price from these values
for inter-dealer transaction price dissemination.\6\ Currently, RTRS
does not compute a corresponding yield from the RTRS-computed dollar
price for dissemination, resulting in a disparity between what is
disseminated for inter-dealer and customer transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Dollar price and yield on customer transactions are required
to be computed in the same manner as required under MSRB Rule G-
15(a), on customer confirmations. Accordingly, from the transaction
dollar price, dealers report yield calculated to the lower of an in-
whole call feature or maturity.
    \6\ For transactions in new issue securities traded on a when,
as and if issued basis prior to the closing date being known,
dealers only report a dollar price or yield since a final money and
accrued interest calculation cannot be performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate yield-based comparisons of transaction data across
securities, the proposed rule change would cause RTRS to be
reprogrammed to perform this calculation so that a yield for most
inter-dealer transactions would be added to the information
disseminated from RTRS, thereby improving the usefulness of the inter-
dealer data disseminated to subscribers and displayed on the MSRB's
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA[supreg]) Web site.\7\ Since
EMMA[supreg] is a subscriber to the RTRS real-time subscription
service, the yield disseminated for inter-dealer transactions also
would be displayed on EMMA[supreg] in the same manner as it would be
provided to RTRS subscribers.\8\ This amendment to the RTRS Facility is
reflected in the changes under the heading ``Price Dissemination by
RTRS--List of Information Items to be Disseminated'' and ``MSRB Real-
Time Transaction Data Subscription Service--Description--Transaction
Data Disseminated--Yield (if applicable),'' and conforming changes to
the RTRS Users Manual will be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition to calculating and disseminating yield for
future inter-dealer transactions, amendments to RTRS specifications
would calculate and disseminate yields for historical inter-dealer
transactions in RTRS to the extent that such calculations can be
accurately performed.
    \8\ Since the RTRS subscription service already includes a field
for yield, no significant system changes should be necessary for
existing RTRS subscribers to receive yields on inter-dealer
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transaction reporting requirements. MSRB rules on transaction
reporting contain two requirements that were included in the original
design for RTRS in 2005 to provide additional details about certain
transactions for use in market surveillance. These requirements have
applied to few transactions, yet continue to generate questions from
dealers, and have provided only limited value for use in market
surveillance. The proposed rule change would revise the RTRS
specifications to remove these requirements.
    The first of these two requirements relates to inter-dealer
transactions and requires the identity of an ``intermediate dealer,''
or correspondent of a clearing broker that passes data to the clearing
broker about transactions effected by a third dealer (``effecting
dealer''), to be included on applicable trade reports. One of the
original purposes of having the intermediate dealer included in a trade
report was to assist market surveillance staff by having an additional
dealer associated with a transaction reported in the event that the
effecting dealer's identity was erroneously reported. However, few
transaction reports contain such an intermediate dealer and, since the
November 2009 enhancement to transaction reporting to add the effecting
broker to the matching criteria in RTTM, the identity of the effecting
dealer is rarely, if ever, erroneous. The proposed rule change would
delete the requirement for dealers to identify the intermediate dealer.
This amendment to the RTRS Facility is reflected by the deletion of the
penultimate paragraph under the heading ``RTRS Facility--Enhancement of
Information Available to Regulators,'' and conforming changes to the
RTRS Users Manual will be made.
    The second requirement applies to any transaction effected at a
price that substantially differs from the market price as a result of
the parties to the transaction agreeing to significantly deviate from a
normal settlement cycle. For such transactions, dealers are required to
include an identifier on the trade report that allows the trade report
to be entered into the RTRS audit trail yet suppressed from price
dissemination. Since a small number of transactions are reported with
this identifier, for example only .01% of trade reports were identified
with this indicator in August 2011, these transactions could be
reported using the generic ``away from market'' indicator used for
reporting any transaction at a price that differs from the current
market price for the security to simplify transaction reporting
requirements. Thus, concurrently with the elimination of the
intermediate dealer reporting requirement, the RTRS Users Manual would
be revised to delete the ``away from market--extraordinary settlement''
special condition indicator from RTRS and require that such
transactions be reported using the generic ``away from market''
indicator.
    Reporting dollar price for all inter-dealer transactions. RTRS
currently computes a dollar price for inter-dealer transactions using
the final money, par amount and accrued interest submitted to DTCC.
Since the information reported for inter-dealer transactions also is
used by DTCC for purposes of clearance and settlement, DTCC procedures
require dealers to report par value as an expression of the number of
bonds traded as opposed to the actual par amount traded. If the par
value of a security is no longer a $1,000 multiple because, for
example, the issuer has prepaid a portion of the principal on a
security on a pro rata basis, dealers continue to report for inter-
dealer transactions par value expressed as the number of bonds (i.e.
ten bonds would be reported as $10,000 par value). Transactions between
dealers in this security would result in erroneous RTRS-calculated
dollar prices since the final money reported by the dealers would be
based on a transaction in a security for which each bond costs less
than $1,000.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if an issuer has prepaid 50% of the principal
on a $1,000 denominated security, each bond would cost $500 so a
transaction of 10 bonds at ``par'' would be reported with a par
value of $10,000 and final money of $5,000 resulting in an RTRS-
computed dollar price of $50. This anomaly only occurs on inter-
dealer transactions since customer transactions are reported with a
dollar price and yield. In this example, the dollar price on a
customer transaction in this security would be reported as $100, or
100% of the principal amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since MSRB transaction reporting for inter-dealer transactions
began in 1994, a very small portion of inter-dealer transactions have
been in securities with a non-standard $1,000 par

multiple.\10\ However, primarily since many Build America Bonds issued
in recent years included partial call features with a pro-rata
redemption provision, there is a likelihood that many more securities
may contain par values that are no longer $1,000 multiples. In
addition, there have been press reports that more securities may be
issued in nontraditional denominations, such as securities issued in
$25 par amounts similar to preferred stock and other ``mini bonds''
with sub-$1,000 principal values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Historically, this problem primarily has been limited to
transactions in certain municipal collateralized mortgage
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the dollar price disseminated for inter-dealer
transactions remains accurate and to minimize the impact on dealer
operations as well as the clearance and settlement use of the data
submitted to DTCC, the MSRB proposes to require dealers to report--in
addition to the information currently reported for inter-dealer
transactions--the contractual dollar price at which the transaction was
executed.\11\ This amendment to the RTRS Facility is reflected in the
changes under the heading ``MSRB Real-Time Transaction Data
Subscription Service--Description--Transaction Data Disseminated--
Dollar Price,'' and conforming changes to the RTRS Users Manual will be
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For data quality purposes, RTRS would compare the buy and
sell-side contractual dollar prices and return errors to dealers in
the event of a material difference between the two reported dollar
prices and continue to calculate a dollar price from the reported
final money, par value and accrued interest. Since the dealer
reported dollar price would not be used for clearance or settlement
at DTCC, this data field would be able to be modified in RTRS by
dealers to correct errors, even after trade matching had occurred.
In the event that the dollar prices disagree between dealers, RTRS
would disseminate the RTRS-calculated dollar price and if the dealer
reported dollar prices agree yet differ from the RTRS-calculated
dollar price (which would occur if the security par value is no
longer a $1,000 multiple) RTRS would disseminate the dealer reported
dollar price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase dissemination of customer transactions. As described
above, dealer reports of customer transactions include both a dollar
price and yield. Depending on whether the transaction was executed on
the basis of a dollar price or yield, a corresponding value must be
computed and reported to RTRS by the dealer consistent with the
customer confirmation requirements so that the corresponding value
reflects a value to the lower of an in-whole call feature or maturity.
RTRS also computes the dollar price from the reported yield on customer
transactions using security descriptive information from the RTRS
security master as a data quality check to ensure that the reported
information is accurate. Currently, this data quality check returns an
error to dealers and suppresses the transaction from being disseminated
in the event that the dollar price computed by RTRS does not exactly
match the dollar price reported by the dealer. Dealers receiving this
error are required to review the information reported and, if
incorrect, modify the transaction information in RTRS. However, in some
cases, dealers submit correct information yet RTRS computes an
erroneous dollar price as a result of an error in the security
descriptive information used by RTRS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In these cases, there is no action the dealer can take to
disseminate the trade report and, to ensure the integrity of RTRS,
the MSRB does not manually manipulate trade data or security
descriptive information to cause the trade to meet the criteria of
the error code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, of those trades receiving this error, over 75% of the
reported dollar prices disagreed with the RTRS-calculated dollar price
by less than one dollar. To increase the number of customer
transactions disseminated, the proposed rule change would cause RTRS to
be reprogrammed to adjust the tolerance of the error code so that the
error would continue to be returned to dealers for customer
transactions where the reported dollar price disagrees with the RTRS
calculated price but allow the trade report to be disseminated so long
as the dealer and RTRS-calculated dollar prices are within $1 of each
other. Further, since the disseminated dollar price would be unable to
be exactly verified, RTRS would also be programmed to include with the
disseminated trade report an indicator that the dollar price of these
trades was unable to be verified. Thus, concurrently with the amendment
to require dollar price reporting for all inter-dealer transactions,
the RTRS Users Manual would be revised to reflect these changes in
programming.
    Phased Effective Dates of Proposed Rule Change. The MSRB proposes
that the proposed rule change be implemented in three phases. Those
changes to Rule G-14, the Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the RTRS
Facility removing outdated provisions and amending certain definitions,
as described above under the caption ``Amendments to the RTRS
Facility--Remove certain outdated information and conform definitions
to reflect current system operating hours and business days'', would be
made effective upon approval by the SEC. Those changes to the RTRS
Facility not requiring dealers to perform significant system changes,
as described above under the captions ``Amendments to the RTRS
Facility--Yields on inter-dealer transactions'' and ``Amendments to the
RTRS Facility--Transaction reporting requirements'', would be made
effective on April 30, 2012. Those changes to the RTRS Facility
requiring dealers and subscribers to the RTRS subscription service to
make significant system changes, as described above under the captions
``Amendments to the RTRS Facility--Reporting dollar price for all
inter-dealer transactions'' and ``Amendments to the RTRS Facility--
Increase dissemination of customer transactions'', would be made
effective on a date to be announced by the MSRB in a notice published
on the MSRB Web site, which date shall be no later than November 30,
2012 and shall be announced no later than 30 days prior to the
effective date thereof.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB.\13\ In particular, the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,
which provides that the MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act because the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities by improving trade reporting and market
transparency. The proposed rule change would facilitate comparison of
trade data across securities and within data for a security, thereby
contributing to fairer pricing, improve the reliability and accuracy of
price information disseminated for inter-dealer

transactions, and increase the number of customer transactions
disseminated to the market. The Commission believes that these changes
would contribute to the MSRB's continuing efforts to improve market
transparency and to protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2012-01) be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7132 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2050-2057]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00091]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0870; FRL-9148-01-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Richmond-
Petersburg 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. 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 standards (NAAQS) (referred to as the ``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in
the Richmond, Virginia Area (Richmond-Petersburg Area). This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 13,
2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0870 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: Serena Nichols, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy
Blvd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215)
814-2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 2021, the VADEQ submitted a
revision to the Virginia SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Richmond-Petersburg Area through December 31,
2028, 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 0.70 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 Richmond-Petersburg Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The Richmond-Petersburg Area consists of the counties of Charles City,
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Prince George, and the cities of
Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Richmond, and Petersburg.
    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 1st, 2007 (72 FR 30485), EPA approved a redesignation
request (and maintenance plan) from VADEQ for the Richmond-Petersburg
Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In accordance with 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\ See 80
FR 12315 (March 6, 2015). 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 (D.C. Circuit) 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 Richmond-Petersburg 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 21, 2021, VADEQ
submitted an LMP for the Richmond-Petersburg Area, following EPA's LMP
guidance and demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through December 31, 2028, i.e., through the entire 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 21, 2021 submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in EPA guidance, including 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 nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In
the first maintenance plan for the Richmond-Petersburg 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 Richmond-Petersburg Area continued to
monitor attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the
emissions inventory from 2014 represents emissions levels conducive to
continued attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, VADEQ is
using 2014 as representing attainment level emissions for its second
maintenance plan. Virginia used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA's
2014 version 7.0 modeling platform as the basis for the 2014 inventory
presented in Table 1 in this document.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For more information, see EPA's April 12, 2007 document
proposing to redesignate the Richmond-Petersburg Area to attainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the associated May 10, 2007 notice
correcting table 5 in the proposal (72 FR 18434, 72 FR 26581).
    \10\ For more information, visit www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.

       Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the Richmond-Petersburg Area in Tons/Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX emissions
                    Area                              Source category                             VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles City County.........................  Fire...........................             0.00              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             0.27              0.37
                                              Nonroad........................             0.35              0.91
                                              Onroad.........................             0.30              0.21
                                              Point..........................             0.44              0.27
Chesterfield County.........................  Fire...........................             0.01              0.08
                                              Nonpoint.......................             1.86              9.10
                                              Nonroad........................             2.35              2.60
                                              Onroad.........................             9.66              6.09
                                              Point..........................             8.44              3.28
Colonial Heights City.......................  Fire...........................             0.00              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             0.09              0.48
                                              Nonroad........................             0.05              0.09
                                              Onroad.........................             0.80              0.40
                                              Point..........................             0.00              0.00
Hanover County..............................  Fire...........................             0.01              0.08
                                              Nonpoint.......................             1.08              3.85
                                              Nonroad........................             1.37              2.07
                                              Onroad.........................             7.19              2.56
                                              Point..........................             1.96              1.45
Henrico County..............................  Fire...........................             0.00              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             2.04              8.54
                                              Nonroad........................             3.37              1.89
                                              Onroad.........................            10.61              5.85

                                              Point..........................             1.26              0.29
Hopewell City...............................  Fire...........................             0.00              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             0.04              0.52
                                              Nonroad........................             0.09              0.16
                                              Onroad.........................             0.55              0.45
                                              Point..........................            26.62              2.48
Petersburg City.............................  Fire...........................            <0.01              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             0.48              1.25
                                              Nonroad........................             0.10              0.14
                                              Onroad.........................             1.54              0.84
                                              Point..........................             0.17              0.01
Prince George County........................  Fire...........................             0.03              0.31
                                              Nonpoint.......................             0.67              1.03
                                              Nonroad........................             0.48              1.18
                                              Onroad.........................             2.75              1.03
                                              Point..........................             0.14              0.01
Richmond City...............................  Fire...........................             0.00              0.00
                                              Nonpoint.......................             1.34              6.59
                                              Nonroad........................             0.87              1.37
                                              Onroad.........................             7.09              4.40
                                              Point..........................             4.56              1.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Table 1 in this document is based on the 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2.\11\ 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 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. The point source sector includes large industrial
operations that are relatively few in number but have large emissions,
such as kraft mills, electrical generating units, and pharmaceutical
factories. 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, portable fuel containers, home heating, repair and
refinishing operations, and crematories. The nonroad emissions sector
includes emissions from engines that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment, such as generators, forklifts, and marine
pleasure craft. 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 fire emissions sector includes emissions from agricultural
burning, prescribed fires, wildfires, and other types of fires. Data
are collected for each source at a facility and reported to VADEQ. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 concentration (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),\12\ EPA
believes that if the most recent DV for the area is well below the
NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), the section
175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided that prevention
of significant deterioration requirements, any control measures already
in the SIP, and any Federal measures 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2022-0870 and is also available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/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 at monitors located in the
Richmond-Petersburg Area from 2001 to 2020. This includes DVs at
monitors 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, and 2018-
2020, which are shown in Table 2 in this document.\13\ In addition, EPA
has reviewed the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data for
ozone in the Richmond-Petersburg Area, as submitted by Virginia and
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System. The most recent DVs (i.e., 2019-
2021) at monitors located in the Richmond-Petersburg Area are as
follows: Chesterfield County, 0.058 ppm; Henrico County 0.060 ppm;
Hanover County, 0.058 ppm; Charles City, 0.058 ppm.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See also Figure 2 of VADEQ's September 21, 2021 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0870.
    \14\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2022-0870 and is also available at www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

                                                                                Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values in Parts per Million for the Richmond-Petersburg Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                County                        AQS Site ID        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  2019-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesterfield.........................  51-041-0004.............      .086       .082       .077       .076       .077       .078       .074       .075       .072       .075       .069       .066       .062       .062       .062        .06       .059       .057       .058
Henrico..............................  51-087-0014.............       .09       .085        .08       .081       .085       .085       .078       .076       .074       .078       .073       .068       .063       .064       .065       .066       .065       .061        .06
Hanover..............................  51-085-0003.............      .094        .09       .082       .081       .081        .08       .075       .075       .073       .076       .072       .068       .063       .062       .063       .064       .063        .06       .058
Charles City.........................  51-036-0002.............      .091       .087       .079        .08       .082       .083       .077       .075       .075       .079       .073       .067       .062       .063       .061       .063       .062       .059       .058
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 at a monitor located in the area and add
the maximum design value 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. The largest
increase in DVs at a monitor located in the Richmond-Petersburg Area
was 0.004 ppm, which occurred between the 2004-2006 (0.081 ppm) and
2005-2007 (0.085 ppm) DVs at the Henrico monitoring site. Adding 0.004
ppm to the highest DV for the 2018-2020 period (0.061 ppm) results in
0.065 ppm, a sum that is still below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    DVs at all monitors located in the Richmond-Petersburg Area have
been below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm or 71 ppb)
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 Richmond-Petersburg
Area is expected to be 0.062 ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that future violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the
Richmond-Petersburg Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 21, 2021 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 Richmond-Petersburg
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 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
    VADEQ's September 21, 2021 submittal includes the following
contingency plan for the Richmond-Petersburg Area:
    Virginia commits to implement all measures with respect to the
control of NOX and VOC contained in the SIP for the area
before redesignation to attainment/maintenance. General conformity
requirements and transportation conformity requirements will no longer
apply once this maintenance plan expires on December 31, 2028.
    Any ozone monitor in the area registering a fourth-highest, eight-
hour average of 0.085 ppm or greater is considered to have recorded an
exceedance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. One control measure listed in Table
3 in this document will be implemented in the unlikely event that a
monitor registers an exceedance.
    Any ozone monitor in the area registering a three-year average of
the fourth-highest, eight-hour ozone values of 0.085 ppm or greater is
considered to have recorded a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Two
additional control measures listed in Table 3 in this document will be
implemented in the unlikely event that a monitor registers a violation.
    Two additional control measures listed in Table 3 in this document
will be implemented in the unlikely event that an ozone monitor
registers a second violation following the implementation of the first
contingency measures.

  Table 3--Contingency Measures for the Richmond-Petersburg Maintenance
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Program                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)         Rule provides additional
 Architectural and Industrial (AIM)       requirements reducing
 Coating Model Rule dated October 13,     emissions from the AIM source
 2014 \16\.                               category.
OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products     Rule provides additional
 dated May 21, 2013 \17\.                 requirements reducing
                                          emissions from the Consumer
                                          Product source category.
OTC Model Rule for Solvent Degreasing    Rule provides additional
 dated 2012 \18\.                         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 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 at least 100 tpy VOC.
 Determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \16\ otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/AIM_Preamble_Model_Rule.pdf.
    \17\ otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/OTC%20CP%20Model%20Rule%20Final%20Clean%202013%20Revision%20Clean.pdf
.
    \18\ otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/2011%20OTC%20Model%20Rule%20for%20Solvent%20Degreasing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following schedule applies to contingency measures should they
need to be implemented due to exceedances or violations of the 1997
ozone NAAQS:
     Notification received from EPA that a contingency measure
must be implemented or three months after a recorded exceedance or
violation is certified.
     Applicable regulation to be adopted 6 months after this
date.
     Applicable regulation to be implemented 6 months after
adoption.
     Compliance with regulation to be achieved within 12 months
of adoption.
    EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in VADEQ's
September 21, 2021 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
Richmond-Petersburg 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 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). An 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 satisfy
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
Richmond-Petersburg 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 21, 2021 submittal indicates that
it meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements
of CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the Richmond-Petersburg 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. 10.1-1198, 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. 10.1-1199, 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
     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).
    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 second maintenance
plan for the Richmond-Petersburg 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).

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. 2023-00091 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P