[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60-63]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73946; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the
Operation of Its New Market Model Pilot, Until the Earlier of
Securities and Exchange Commission Approval To Make Such Pilot
Permanent or July 31, 2015

December 24, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 18, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market
Model Pilot, currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014, until
the earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
approval to make such pilot permanent or July 31, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market
Model Pilot (``NMM Pilot'') that was adopted pursuant to its merger
with the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\4\

The NMM Pilot was approved to operate until October 1, 2009. The
Exchange filed to extend the operation of the Pilot to November 30,
2009, March 30, 2010, September 30, 2010, January 31, 2011, August 1,
2011, January 31, 2012, July 31, 2012, January 31, 2013, July 31, 2013,
January 31, 2014, July 31, 2014, and December 31, 2014 respectively.\5\
The Exchange now seeks to extend the operation of the NMM Pilot,
currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014, until the earlier
of Commission approval to make such pilot permanent or July 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Euronext acquired The Amex Membership Corporation
(``AMC'') pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January
17, 2008 (the ``Merger''). In connection with the Merger, the
Exchange's predecessor, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''),
a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext called
NYSE Alternext US LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673
(September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60
and SR-Amex-2008-62) (approving the Merger); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 58705 (Oct. 1, 2008), 73 FR 58995 (Oct. 8,
2008) (approving adoption of equities rules based on those of NYSE)
and 59022 (Nov. 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (Dec. 3, 2008) (amending
equity rules to conform to NYSE NMM Pilot rules). Subsequently, NYSE
Alternext US LLC was renamed NYSE Amex LLC, which was then renamed
NYSE MKT LLC and continues to operate as a national securities
exchange registered under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11803 (March 19, 2009)
(SR-NYSEALTR-2009-24) and 67037 (May 21, 2012), 77 FR 31415 (May 25,
2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60758 (October 1,
2009), 74 FR 51639 (October 7, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-65). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61030 (November 19, 2009), 74
FR 62365 (November 27, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-83) (extending Pilot
to March 30, 2010); 61725 (March 17, 2010), 75 FR 14223 (March 24,
2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-28) (extending Pilot to September 30, 2010);
62820 (September 1, 2010), 75 FR 54935 (September 9, 2010) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-86) (extending Pilot to January 31, 2011); 63615
(December 29, 2010), 76 FR 611 (January 5, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-
123) (extending Pilot to August 1, 2011); 64773 (June 29, 2011), 76
FR 39453 (July 6, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-43) (extending Pilot to
January 31, 2012); 66042 (December 23, 2011), 76 FR 82326 (December
30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-102) (extending Pilot to July 31, 2012);
67495 (July 25, 2012), 77 FR 45406 (July 31, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-
21) (extending the Pilot to January 31, 2013); 68559 (January 2,
2013), 78 FR 1286 (January 8, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-84) (extending
Pilot to July 31, 2013); 69812 (June 20, 2013), 78 FR 38766 (June
27, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-51) (extending Pilot to January 31,
2014); 71342 (January 17, 2014), 79 FR 4197 (January 24, 2014) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2014-02) (extending Pilot to July 31, 2014); and 72622 (July
16, 2014), 79 FR 42600 (July 22, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-57)
(extending Pilot to December 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of NYSE.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSE-2014-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The information contained herein is a summary of the NMM
Pilot. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46) for a fuller
description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2008, the Exchange implemented significant changes to
its equities market rules, execution technology and the rights and
obligations of its equities market participants all of which were
designed to improve execution quality on the Exchange. These changes
are all elements of the Exchange's enhanced market model that it
implemented through the NMM Pilot.
    As part of the NMM Pilot, the Exchange eliminated the function of
equity specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market
participant, the Designated Market Maker or DMM.\8\ The DMMs, like
specialists, have affirmative obligations to make an orderly market,
including continuous quoting requirements and obligations to re-enter
the market when reaching across to execute against trading interest.
Unlike specialists, DMMs have a minimum quoting requirement \9\ in
their assigned securities and no longer have a negative obligation.
DMMs are also no longer agents for public customer orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE MKT Rule 103--Equities.
    \9\ See NYSE MKT Rule 104--Equities.
    \10\ See NYSE MKT Rule 60--Equities; see also NYSE MKT Rules
104--Equities and 1000--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange implemented a system change that allowed
DMMs to create a schedule of additional non-displayed liquidity at
various price points where the DMM is willing to interact with interest
and provide price improvement to orders in the Exchange's system. This
schedule is known as the DMM Capital Commitment Schedule (``CCS'').\11\
CCS provides the Display Book[supreg] \12\ with the amount of shares
that the DMM is willing to trade at price points outside, at and inside
the Exchange Best Bid or Best Offer (``BBO''). CCS interest is separate
and distinct from other DMM interest in that it serves as the interest
of last resort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE MKT Rule 1000--Equities.
    \12\ The Display Book system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book system receives and displays
orders to the DMMs, contains the order information, and provides a
mechanism to execute and report transactions and publish the results
to the Consolidated Tape. The Display Book system is connected to a
number of other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison,
surveillance, and reporting information to customers and other
market data and national market systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NMM Pilot further modified the logic for allocating executed
shares among market participants having trading interest at a price
point upon execution of incoming orders. The modified logic rewards
displayed orders that establish the Exchange's BBO. During the
operation of the NMM Pilot, orders or portions thereof that establish
priority \13\ retain that priority until the portion of the order that
established priority is exhausted. Where no one order has established
priority, shares are distributed among all market participants on
parity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE MKT Rule 72(a)(ii)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NMM Pilot was originally scheduled to end operation on October
1, 2009, or such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make
the rules permanent. The Exchange filed to extend the operation of the
Pilot on several occasions \14\ in order to prepare a rule filing
seeking permission to make the above described changes permanent. The
Exchange is currently still preparing such formal submission but does
not expect that filing to be completed and approved by the Commission
before December 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the NMM Pilot
    The Exchange established the NMM Pilot to provide incentives for
quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity
providers and to add a new competitive market participant. The Exchange
believes that the NMM Pilot allows the Exchange to provide its market
participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market
structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the
trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward
aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the
rules governing the NMM Pilot should be made permanent. Through this
filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the NMM
Pilot until July 31, 2015, in order to allow the Exchange time to
formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the pilot rules
to permanent rules.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because it
is 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 securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent

fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and
equitable principles of trade because it seeks to extend a pilot
program that has already been approved by the Commission. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is designed to facilitate
transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system
because the NMM Pilot provides its market participants with a trading
venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the
addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more
efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers.
Moreover, requesting an extension of the NMM Pilot will permit adequate
time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to make the
rules governing the NMM Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice and
comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process. Finally,
the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that
the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that extending the operation
of the NMM Pilot will enhance competition among liquidity providers and
thereby improve execution quality on the Exchange. The Exchange will
continue to monitor the efficacy of the program during the proposed
extended pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the
requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative before the pilot's expiration. The Exchange states
that an immediate operative date is necessary in order to immediately
implement the proposed rule change so that member organizations could
continue to benefit from the pilot program without interruption after
December 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal would allow the
pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential
investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in
the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative on December 31, 2014.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-109 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-109. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-109 and should
be submitted on or before January 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30705 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9206-9211]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0150-200711(a); FRL-8528-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Georgia: Early Progress Plan for the Atlanta 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 31, 2006, the State of Georgia, through the
Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, submitted a voluntary State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision requesting approval of an Early Progress Plan for the
sole purpose of establishing motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
the Atlanta 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Atlanta 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area is comprised of the following twenty counties:
Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton,
Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton counties in their entireties
(hereafter referred to as the ``Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area''). EPA is
approving Atlanta's Early Progress Plan, including the new regional
MVEBs for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for 2006. This approval of the Early Progress Plan for
the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area is based on EPA's determination that
Georgia has demonstrated that the SIP revision containing these MVEBs,
when considered with the emissions from all sources, shows some
progress toward attainment from the base year (i.e., 2002) through an
interim target year (i.e., 2006).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective April 21, 2008 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 21, 2008.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0150, by one of the following methods:
    a. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    b. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    c. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    d. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0150, Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    e. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0150. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you

contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin of the Air
Quality Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Benjamin's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?
III. What Are the Regional MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Early Progress Plans?
V. Why is EPA Taking This Action?
VI. What is the Effect of EPA's Action?
VII. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for MVEBs
for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area?
IX. Final Actions on Atlanta's Early Progress Plan Including
Approval of the 2006 MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving Atlanta's Early Progress Plan, including the new
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2006. This approval of
the Early Progress Plan for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area is based on
EPA's determination that Georgia has demonstrated that the MVEBs are
consistent with emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area
(when projected from the base to a future year) and are included in a
SIP revision showing some progress toward attainment. These regional
MVEBs apply to the entire Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area.
    This direct final rulemaking is in response to Georgia's January
12, 2007, SIP submittal, which supersedes Georgia's October 26, 2006,
submittal that included a request for parallel processing.\1\ This
revision is a voluntary SIP revision provided by Georgia for the sole
purpose of establishing MVEBs for the purpose of implementing
transportation conformity in the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area. This
submission is not being evaluated in terms of meeting SIP requirements
for an attainment demonstration or rate-of-progress plan which may be
required for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Georgia's January 12, 2007, submittal was sent to EPA for
approval with a December 31, 2006, cover letter but the SIP
submittal is actually dated for January 12, 2007, and thus will be
referred to throughout this rulemaking as Georgia's January 12,
2007, SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC from sources react in the presence
of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC are
referred to as precursors of ozone. The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes
a process for air quality management through the setting of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health
and welfare. Transportation conformity is a component of the air
quality management process that must be implemented in areas that are
designated nonattainment or were previously designated nonattainment
and are required to develop a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for a
NAAQS affected by emissions from motor vehicles. Ozone is one such
NAAQS.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the 20-county Atlanta 8-Hour
Ozone Area as a ``marginal'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (see, 69
FR 23857, April 30, 2004). Thirteen counties \2\ in the Atlanta 8-Hour
Ozone Area were previously designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard and have 1-hour MVEBs for NOX and VOC
established in the Georgia SIP. The remaining seven counties \3\ of the
20-county Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area were designated attainment for the
1-hour ozone standard and as such did not have 1-hour MVEBs for
NOX and VOC. Consequently, the transportation partners in
this Area used a combination of the budget test and the interim 2002
baseline test to demonstrate transportation conformity for the 8-hour
ozone standard, as required by the transportation conformity rule at 40
CFR 93.109(e)(2)(iii). Specifically, for the 13-county 1-hour ozone
area, the MVEBs in the Georgia SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard were
used to demonstrate transportation conformity for the 8-hour ozone
standard. For the remaining seven counties, the 2002 baseline test, as
agreed to through interagency consultation, was used to demonstrate
transportation conformity for the 8-hour ozone standard. Thirteen
counties of the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area were within a 1-hour ozone
attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the
1-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Atlanta 1-hour ozone area was comprised of the following
thirteen counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas,
Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale
counties in their entireties.
    \3\ The seven additional counties that are included in the 8-
hour ozone nonattainment for Atlanta are: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll,
Hall, Newton, Spalding and Walton counties in their entireties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) issued a decision vacating portions of EPA's Phase I 8-
Hour Ozone Implementation Rule. This decision does not impact Georgia's
request for approval of the voluntary Early Progress Plan. In its June
8th decision, the Court clarified that for areas with 1-hour MVEBs, the
transportation conformity rule's requirement to use 1-hour MVEBs for 8-
hour conformity determinations until they are replaced by 8-hour
budgets fulfills the CAA's anti-backsliding requirements. Consistent
with EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 and prior to EPA's
adequacy finding for the 8-hour ozone MVEBs in Atlanta's Early Progress
Plan, the Atlanta Regional Commission and the Gainesville-Hall
Metropolitan Planning Organization were meeting the requirement to use
the 1-hour ozone MVEBs as an interim test for conformity
determinations.

III. What Are the Regional MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area?

    Pursuant to the CAA, states are required to submit, at various
times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for ozone
nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g., reasonable
further progress SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Pursuant to 40
CFR part 93, an MVEB is required to be established for: (1) The
attainment year for an attainment plan; (2) the last year of the
maintenance plan; or (3) the target year for a reasonable further
progress plan. Additionally, through an Early Progress Plan, a state
may voluntarily establish MVEBs for an area so long as these MVEBs are
consistent with a demonstration that shows some progress, between a
base and future year, towards attainment. The MVEB is the portion of
the total allowable emissions in a SIP that is allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to
establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB.
    The State of Georgia, after interagency consultation with the
transportation partners for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area, elected to
develop regional MVEBs for NOX and VOC for this entire area
through an Early Progress Plan. The regional MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area are established for the year 2006, and
are defined in the table below.

                Table 1.--Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area MVEBs
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..........................................................     306.75
VOC..........................................................     172.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the 2006 regional MVEBs
for NOX and VOC for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area because
EPA has determined that the MVEBs contained in the Early Progress SIP
revision are consistent with emissions from all sources within the
nonattainment area (when projected from the base to a future year) in
showing some progress toward attainment. In a previous action, EPA has
already found these MVEBs adequate, so they must be used for future
conformity determinations.

IV. What Are the Criteria for Early Progress Plans?

    EPA allows for the establishment of MVEBs for the 8-hour ozone
standard prior to a state submitting its first required 8-hour ozone
SIP that would include new MVEBs. Although voluntary, these ``early''
MVEBs must be established through a plan that meets all the
requirements of a SIP submittal. This plan is known as the ``Early
Progress Plan.'' Specifically and in reference to Early Progress Plans,
the preamble of the July 1, 2004, final transportation conformity rule
(see, 69 FR 40019) reads as follows:

    ``The first 8-hour ozone SIP could be a control strategy SIP
required by the Clean Air Act (e.g., rate-of-progress SIP or
attainment demonstration) or a maintenance plan. However, 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas `are free to establish, through the SIP
process, a motor vehicle emissions budget or budgets that addresses
the new NAAQS in advance of a complete SIP attainment demonstration.
That is, a state could submit a motor vehicle emission budget that
does not demonstrate attainment but is consistent with projections
and commitments to control measures and achieves some progress
toward attainment' (August 15, 1997, 62 FR 43799). A SIP submitted
earlier than otherwise required can demonstrate a significant level
of emissions reductions from current level of emissions, instead of
a specific percentage required by the Clean Air Act for moderate and
above ozone areas.''

    The Early Progress Plan must demonstrate that the SIP revision
containing the MVEBs, when considered with emissions from all sources,
and when projected from the base year to a future year, show some
progress toward attainment. EPA has previously indicated that a 5
percent to 10 percent reduction in emissions from all sources could
represent a significant level of emissions reductions from current
levels (69 FR 40019). This allowance is provided so that areas have an
opportunity to use the budget test to demonstrate conformity as opposed
to the interim conformity tests (i.e., 2002 baseline test and/or
``build-no greater-than-no build test'') \4\. The budget test with an
adequate or approved SIP budget is generally more protective of air
quality and provides a more relevant basis for conformity
determinations than the interim emissions test. (69 FR 40026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR part 93
for more information on the interim tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should also be noted that the Early Progress Plan is not a
required plan and does not substitute for required submissions such as
an attainment demonstration or rate-of-progress plan, if such plans
become required for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area.

V. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    On January 16, 2007, EPA received a request to approve the Early
Progress Plan for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area for the sole purpose of
establishing 8-hour ozone MVEBs for the entire 20-county 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA's evaluation indicates that Georgia has
demonstrated that the MVEBs in the Early Progress Plan are consistent
with a demonstration that shows some progress towards attainment of the
8-hour ozone standard.

VI. What Is the Effect of EPA's Action?

    Approval of Atlanta's Early Progress Plan into the Georgia SIP
would establish regional 8-hour ozone MVEBs for NOX and VOC
for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area. The regional MVEBs for the year 2006
are 306.75 tons per day (tpd) for NOX and 172.27 tpd for
VOC. As of April 24, 2007, the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding
for these MVEBs, conformity determinations in Atlanta must meet the
budget test using these 8-hour MVEBs, instead of the 1-hour ozone MVEBs
and 2002 baseline year test. The CAA requires that conformity of the
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs be
determined within two years of EPA's adequacy finding for MVEBs, or
within two years of EPA's approval of the SIP that includes them if the
MVEBs have not already been found adequate (see, CAA section
176(c)(2)(E)).
    Submittal (and consequently approval) of Atlanta's Early Progress
Plan does not satisfy the requirement for Georgia to provide a full 8-
hour ozone attainment demonstration or rate-of-progress plan, when
these SIP revisions become required for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area.
In its revision, Georgia indicated that they have included reductions
from outside the nonattainment area towards the progress demonstration
for the Atlanta Early Progress SIP. However, since the development of
this SIP revision by Georgia, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
and remanded the policy provision of EPA's Phase II Ozone
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, November 11, 2005) that allowed rate
of progress/reasonable further progress credit for reductions to come
from outside the nonattainment area. See, NRDC v. EPA, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 25796 (November 2, 2007). EPA is now reconsidering its Phase II
Rule. See, http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/20061211_reconsideration_fs.pdf
, for more information. Even if EPA determines,

after reconsideration, that it is not appropriate to allow credit for
reductions from outside the nonattainment area, it is still appropriate
to approve this voluntary Early Progress Plan because sufficient
reductions occur within the nonattainment area. Additionally, the
reductions from outside the nonattainment were not used by the State of
Georgia to demonstrate the progress necessary for this nonattainment
area to establish Early Progress MVEBs.

VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

    On January 16, 2007, EPA received a request for approval of an
Early Progress Plan for the sole purpose of establishing MVEBs for the
20-county Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area. The submittal utilizes a base year
of 2002 to establish NOX and VOC MVEBs for the year 2006.
The planning assumptions used to develop the MVEBs were discussed and
agreed to by the Atlanta interagency consultation group, which consists
of the transportation and air quality partners in the Atlanta 8-hour
ozone

nonattainment area. The total emissions in 2002 from point, area,
nonroad and mobile sources for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area equaled
642.3 tpd of NOX and 713.7 tpd of VOC. The projected total
emissions for the aforementioned source categories for 2006 for Atlanta
equaled 525.4 tpd of NOX and 602.4 tpd of VOC. This
represents an 18 percent reduction in NOX and a 16 percent
reduction in VOC emissions from 2002 to 2006 from sources located
within the 20-county nonattainment area, which is a greater reduction
than necessary to represent a significant level of emissions
reductions. Tables 2 and 3 below show the 2002 actual emissions and
2006 emission projections for point, area, nonroad and mobile source
reductions.

            Table 2.--Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area NOX Emissions
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                     2002        2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................      139.8        80.8
Area............................................       32.5        32.7
On-road Mobile*.................................      342.14      306.72
Nonroad.........................................      127.9       105.1
                                                 -----------------------
    Total **....................................      642.3       525.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
** There may be a slight difference for this total due to various
  rounding conventions used by the State to generate the emissions for
  point, area, onroad mobile and nonroad sources.

            Table 3.--Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area VOC Emissions
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                     2002        2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................       20.6        19.6
Area............................................      347.6       326.4
On-road Mobile*.................................      224.66   ***172.22
Nonroad.........................................      120.9        84.2
                                                 -----------------------
    Total **....................................      713.7    ***602.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
** There may be a slight difference for this total due to various
  rounding conventions used by the State to generate the emissions for
  point, area, onroad mobile and nonroad sources.
*** Including the senior inspection & maintenance exemption, this total
  is 172.27 tpd, indicating a grand total of 602.45.

    The 2006 MVEBs, as discussed in Section III of this rulemaking, are
consistent with Georgia's 2002 emission baseline and 2006 projected
inventories for on-road mobile sources. Atlanta's Early Progress Plan,
including the 2006 MVEBs, is approvable because the SIP revision meets
all applicable requirements for a voluntary Early Progress Plan. In a
separate action, EPA has already found these MVEBs adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Please see Section VIII of this
rulemaking for more details on the adequacy process.

VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for MVEBs for
the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan (or SIP) that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not ``conform,'' most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is
one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation
conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for
nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are those that
were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since
been redesignated to attainment with a maintenance plan for that NAAQS.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of an MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining
``adequacy'' consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a
SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding.
This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was
initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for
Existing Areas; transportation conformity rule amendments--Response to
Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
    Atlanta's Early Progress Plan submission contained new regional
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area for the
year 2006. The availability of the Georgia SIP submission with the
Atlanta MVEBs was available for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web
page on October 30, 2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
 The EPA public comment period on adequacy of

the 2006 regional MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area closed on
November 29, 2006. EPA did not receive any comments or requests for the
submittal.
    EPA could not complete its adequacy process until the final
submission of the Early Progress Plan was provided to EPA by the State
of Georgia. EPA received the final submission on January 16, 2007. On
January 24, 2007, EPA Region 4 sent a letter to Georgia informing them
that EPA had found the MVEBs in Atlanta Early Progress Plan, dated
January 12, 2007, to be adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. In the January 24, 2007, letter, EPA explained that the MVEBs
would be made available for use upon the effective date of EPA's notice
of adequacy for these MVEBs in the Federal Register.
    On April 9, 2007, EPA published a notice of adequacy in the Federal
Register, and explained to the public that the notice was simply an
announcement of a finding that EPA had already made. Further, the April
9, 2007, Federal Register notice explained that EPA Region 4 had sent a
letter to Georgia on January 24, 2007, to inform the State that the
MVEBs in the Atlanta Early Progress Plan, dated January 12, 2007, were
adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity (72 FR 17550).
    In the April 9, 2007, Federal Register notice, EPA inadvertently
mislabeled the Atlanta 8-hour ozone NOX MVEB as 172.27 tpd
and the VOC MVEB as 306.75 tpd. As announced in EPA's letter to Georgia
on January 24, 2007, the 2006 MVEBs for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Area,
as established by the Early Progress Plan for Atlanta are actually
306.75 tpd for NOX and 172.27 tpd for VOC. EPA corrected
this error in a Federal Register notice published on August 24, 2007
(72 FR 48635). This

finding was also announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm
.

IX. Final Actions on Atlanta's Early Progress Plan and the 2006 MVEBs

    EPA is now taking direct final action to approve the January 12,
2007, SIP revision containing Atlanta's Early Progress Plan, which
includes regional MVEBs for 2006 for the entire Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone
Area. EPA is approving the Early Progress Plan and the regional MVEBs
for the Atlanta 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area because the plan meets
all the requirements of a SIP submittal, and because the MVEBs, when
considered with emissions from all sources, are contained in a SIP that
shows some progress towards attainment from the base year of 2002 to
the target year of 2006. EPA previously made these MVEBs available for
use by the transportation partners through EPA's adequacy process.
These MVEBs are currently being used in this area to demonstrate
transportation conformity.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 21, 2008
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
March 21, 2008.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on April 21, 2008 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a SIP revision
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 21, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 6, 2008.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``27. Atlanta Early Progress Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      State submittal
  Name of nonregulatory SIP provision     Applicable geographic or    date/effective       EPA approval date
                                             nonattainment area            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
27. Atlanta Early Progress Plan........  Barrow, Bartow, Carroll,             1/12/07  2/20/08 [Insert first
                                          Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb,                      page of publication].
                                          Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas,
                                          Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton,
                                          Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
                                          Newton, Paulding,
                                          Rockdale, Spalding and
                                          Walton counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-2706 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


      MEMORANDUM

      DATE:02/19/2015
      FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
      TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
      SUBJECT:	United Power Board of Directors Meeting on 02/18/2015

      SUMMARY:
      Laura Farris participated in a meeting on 02/18/2015 to discuss the Clean Power Plan. The meeting was held in Brighton, Colorado. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014.

      ATTENDEES:

EPA
      Laura Farris, EPA Region 8

      United Power Board of Directors
      Tim Erickson, East District
      Beth Martin, East District
      James Vigesaa, East District
      Bill Berens, South District
      Bob Grant, South District
      Dave Rose, South District
      Ginny Buczek, West District
      Brian McCormick, West District
      Ursula Morgan, West District
      Richard Newman, Mountain District
      Douglas Pryce, Mountain District