[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34666-34667]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15746]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0007; FRL-9963-52]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in
the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications. EPA received the following applications to register new
active ingredients:
    File Symbol: 279-GARA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187.
Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: Bacillus licheniformis
strain FMCH001 Technical. Active ingredient: Fungicide, plant
regulator, and nematocide--Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 at
100.0%. Proposed use: For manufacturing use only.
    File Symbol: 279-GARI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187.
Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: F4018-4. Active ingredients:
Fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide--Bacillus licheniformis
strain FMCH001 at 3.50% and Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 at 4.00%.
Proposed use: A biological fungicide and nematocide for seed treatment
use to control listed fungal diseases and provide protection from
listed soil nematodes.
    File Symbol: 279-GARO. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187.
Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: F4022-1. Active ingredients:
Insecticide, fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide--Bifenthrin at
16.3% and Bacillus licheniformis

strain FMCH001 at 1.0%. Proposed use: For mixing directly with liquid
fertilizer to control listed soil pests.
    File Symbol: 279-GART. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0187.
Applicant: FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Product name: Bacillus subtilis strain
FMCH002 Technical. Active ingredient: Fungicide and plant regulator--
Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002 at 100.0%. Proposed use: For
manufacturing use only.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 6, 2017.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-15746 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69485-69487]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70851; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-137]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees Under Rule 7030(d) for Use of the Carteret NASDAQ
Testing Facility Test Environment

November 13, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to establish fees under Rule 7030(d) for use of the
NASDAQ Testing Facility (``NTF'') test environment located in Carteret,
New Jersey, which will provide a virtual trading environment for
testing. NASDAQ will begin assessing the fees on or about November 11,
2013; however, the installation fee will be waived for subscriptions
ordered through March 31, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

7030. Other Services

(a)-(c) No change.
(d) Nasdaq Testing Facilit[y]ies
    Nasdaq operates two test environments. One is located in Ashburn,
Virginia and the other in Carteret, New Jersey. Unless otherwise noted,
reference to the ``Nasdaq Testing Facility'' or ``NTF'' applies to both
environments.
    (1) The following fees are assessed for access to the Nasdaq
Testing Facility:
    (A) Subscribers that conduct tests of the computer-to-computer
interface (CTCI) and the Financial Information Exchange (FIX) interface
to ACT and ACES access protocols through the Nasdaq Testing Facility
(NTF) shall pay the following charges:

$285/hour for Active Connection testing during the normal operating
 hours of the NTF;
No Charge for Idle Connection testing;
$333/hour for Active Connection testing at all times other than the
 normal operating hours of the NTF.

    (B) Subscribers that conduct tests of all Nasdaq access protocol
connections not included in paragraph (A) above or of market data
vendor feeds through the Nasdaq Testing Facility shall pay $300 per
port, per month.
    (C) Subscribers to the Nasdaq Testing Facility located in Carteret,
New Jersey shall pay a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for
connection to the NTF. The hand-off fee includes either a 1Gb or 10Gb
switch port and a cross connect to the NTF. Subscribers shall also pay
a one-time installation fee of $1,000 per hand-off, which is waived for
all installations ordered prior to March 31, 2014.
(2)-(6) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7030(d) to establish fees for
connection to a test environment. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes a one-
time, per hand-off installation fee and a per hand-off monthly fee
assessed for direct connectivity to the NASDAQ Testing Facility \3\
test environment located in Carteret, New Jersey (``Carteret''), which
is also the location of NASDAQ's primary trading System.\4\ The NTF
provides subscribers with a virtual NASDAQ System test environment that
closely approximates the production environment and on which they may
test their automated systems that integrate with NASDAQ. For example,
the NTF provides subscribers a virtual System environment for testing
upcoming NASDAQ releases and product enhancements, as well as testing
firm software prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TestingFacility for a description of the NTF.
    \4\ As defined by Rule 4751(a). NASDAQ's System is mirrored at
other locations as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTF is currently housed solely in NASDAQ's Ashburn, Virginia
facility (``Ashburn''). In addition to housing the NTF, Ashburn is also
a NASDAQ disaster recovery facility and, as such, some member firms
connect to Ashburn for disaster recovery purposes in addition to
trading system testing. NASDAQ currently assesses fees on members for
physical connectivity to Ashburn.\5\ In addition, member firms pay fees
to third party connectivity providers to provide connection from the
member firm to Ashburn. The relatively large distance to [sic] between
the Ashburn Testing Facility and the majority of NASDAQ OMX firms
results in expensive connectivity costs for customers that connect via
telecommunication providers. As a consequence, a large majority of
member firms do [sic] not connect to Ashburn for NTF connectivity. In
an effort to improve the utility of the NTF, NASDAQ is developing a
test environment located in Carteret that will provide the same
functionality as the trading testing functionality of Ashburn, yet more
closely approximate the live trading environment due to its proximity
to the System and upgraded hardware. In particular, the Carteret test
environment will take advantage of technology upgrades NASDAQ is making
to its trading-related systems. Unlike the Ashburn test environment,
the Carteret test environment will provide dedicated connectivity to
the facility via a cross-connection to either a member firm's direct
connection router in Carteret or its co-location cabinet.\6\ NASDAQ
will ultimately sunset the trading testing functionality at Ashburn,
yet retain post trade reporting and ACES functionality at that
location.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASDAQ assesses fees for direct connection to Ashburn and
fees for co-location connectivity. See Rules 7051 and 7034(b),
respectively.
    \6\ Member firms currently use their connectivity to the Ashburn
test environment for both testing and disaster recovery purposes.
    \7\ NASDAQ is not upgrading the hardware used for post trade
reporting and ACES testing at this time, but may do so in the
future. As noted, the new hardware implemented in the Carteret test
environment is part of the larger technology upgrade to the System's
hardware also located in Carteret.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ notes that, because the Carteret facility also houses the
System, subscribers to the Carteret test environment will no longer
need to pay for third party connectivity to Ashburn if the sole purpose
for connecting to Ashburn is for trading testing. Such member firms may
use an existing connection to Carteret to access the NTF through the
use of a dedicated switch port and cross connect within the facility.
NASDAQ is proposing to assess a fee for connection to the test
environment within the Carteret facility. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes
assessing a $1,000 per hand-off, per month fee assessed for
connectivity to the Carteret test environment for either 1Gb or 10Gb,
and a one-time per hand-off installation fee of $1,000, which will
cover NASDAQ's costs incurred in setting up a subscriber in the
Carteret facility. NASDAQ is proposing to waive the installation fee
through March 31, 2014, after which NASDAQ will begin phasing out
trading testing at the Ashburn test environment.
    NASDAQ is also making a minor clarifying change to the rule in
light of the operation of dual NTF test environments.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\9\ in particular. NASDAQ believes that proposal is with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The new fees are equitably allocated
because all member firms receive connectivity to the Carteret test
environment for the same fee. NASDAQ believes that offering subscribers
the option to subscribe to either 1Gb or 10Gb for the same fee is an
equitable allocation because, unlike the live trading environment,
there is no competitive advantage to possessing a higher capacity
switch port in the test environment. The test environment is designed
to closely mirror the live trading environment for participants,
including matching the capacity of each participant's live environment
switch port. In the absence of any competitive advantage, charging a
uniform fee for both 1Gb and 10Gb switch ports is an equitable
allocation of fees. NASDAQ believes that charging a uniform fee rather
than mirroring the fees for the live trading environment \11\ will
encourage member firms to subscribe to Carteret, and further encourage
those that subscribe to use the same hardware as is used by them for
connectivity to the live trading environment. NASDAQ also believes that
waiver of the installation fee for all installations ordered prior to
March 31, 2014 is an equitable allocation as it is available to all
member firms during the time frame; thus any member firm may avail
itself of the free period if it so chooses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ Members are assessed a monthly fees of $5,000 for 10 Gb and
$1,000 for 1 Gb direct connectivity to NASDAQ. See Rule 7051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new fees are reasonable because they are designed to cover the
costs NASDAQ has incurred in developing and offering the new test
environment. The proposed fee should allow the Exchange to recoup these
costs and make a profit, while providing member firms with a superior
test environment that more closely mirrors that of the live trading
environment on NASDAQ. NASDAQ believes that offering both 1Gb and 10Gb
connectivity for the same fee is reasonable as the increased
incremental cost it incurs by offering the 10Gb switch port at the
lower fee is outweighed by the benefit all subscribers will receive if
Carteret participants use hardware identical to what they use in the
live trading environment, hence furthering the goal

of creating a test environment that closely mirrors the live trading
environment. Waiver of the installation fee for a limited period is
reasonable because NASDAQ believes such a waiver will attract new users
to the test environment, thus ensuring a certain minimum level of
monthly revenue to support the facility initially.
    The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer [sic],
issuers, brokers and dealers. NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed
fees are unfairly discriminatory to subscribers to 10Gb live trading
environment connectivity because, unlike the live trading environment
where the capacity of connectivity to NASDAQ may confer a competitive
advantage to a market participant and therefore price differentiation
is appropriate for the benefit conferred, there is no such benefit
conferred in the trade test environment. NASDAQ does not believe that
the proposed fees are unfairly discriminatory among subscribers to the
Carteret test facility because all member firms that subscribe to the
service will be assessed the same fees. Because the proposed fees do
not discriminate between 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity options, member
firms are able to subscribe to Carteret without regard to the cost of
their switch port capacity election. NASDAQ believes that by not
discriminating on this basis it will encourage participants to connect
to the Carteret test environment in the same manner as they do to the
live trading environment, and thereby help Carteret more closely mirror
the live test environment, as discussed above. Providing a more useful
and accurate test environment will serve to improve live trading on
NASDAQ and the national market system by permitting member firms the
ability to accurately test changes prior to implementing them in the
live trading environment, thereby reducing the likelihood of a
potentially disruptive system failure in the live trading environment,
which has the potential to affect all market participants. Last, NASDAQ
does not believe that waiver of the installation fee is unfairly
discriminatory as it is uniformly applied for a limited time, during
which any member firm may subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the new
test environment more closely approximates the live trading
environment, subscribing member firms will be able to more accurately
test their trading systems and avoid potentially disruptive system
failures in the live trading environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\13\ and paragraph (f)(2)\14\ of Rule 19b-4,
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NASDAQ-2013-137 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-137. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 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-NASDAQ-2013-137 and should
be submitted on or before December 10, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27617 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62454-62461]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25172]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177; FRL-9740-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of
York County, South Carolina Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Reasonable Further Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve two state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on August 31,
2007, and April 29, 2010, to address the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for the portion of York County, South
Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'') is comprised
of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion
of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in North
Carolina; and a portion of York County in South Carolina (hereafter
referred to as ``the York County Area''). EPA is also providing the
status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) that were included
in South Carolina's RFP plan. Further, EPA is approving these MVEB.
These actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act). EPA will take action on North Carolina's RFP plan for
its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, in a separate action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective December 14, 2012 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 14,
2012. 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 Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' Regulatory Development 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0177.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at 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
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email 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
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 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. Sara Waterson of the Regulatory
Development Section, in 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. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sara Waterson can 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 is EPA's analysis of the RFP plan for the York County
Area?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County
Area?
V. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the 2008
VOC MVEB for the York County Area?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by
the State of South Carolina through SC DHEC, on August 31, 2007, and
April 29, 2010, to meet RFP requirements of the CAA for the York County
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The RFP plan demonstrates that
VOC emissions will be reduced by at least 15 percent for the period of
2002 through 2008. Additionally, EPA is approving the required 2008 VOC
MVEB which were included in the York County Area RFP plan. EPA is
taking these actions because they are consistent with CAA requirements
for the requirements for RFP. The York County Area MVEB, expressed in
tons per day (tpd) and kilograms per day (kgd), are provided in Table 1
below.

    Table 1--York County, South Carolina* 1997 8-Hour Ozone VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2008                    2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 York County ( partial county) VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               VOC               6.053 tpd               5,493 kgd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the
  nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

EPA is also describing the status of its transportation conformity
adequacy determination for the 2008 MVEB.

II. What is the background for EPA's action?

A. General Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet the
data completeness requirement as determined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is
met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data
is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent
data completeness.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30,
2004 (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data
(69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the bi-state
Charlotte Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone
Implementation Rule, EPA established ozone nonattainment area
attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This
established an attainment date six years after the June 15, 2004,
effective date for areas classified as moderate areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181 of the CAA explains
that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after
designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's
original attainment date was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004.
    The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of
the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for
extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the
original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment
date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that
North Carolina and South Carolina met the CAA requirements to obtain a
one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area. See 76 FR 31245. As a result,
EPA extended the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June
15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently,
on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The determination of attaining data was based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for
the 2008-2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP
revisions related to attainment of the standard were suspended as a
result of the determination of attainment, so long as the Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See 40 CFR
52.2125(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Originally, South Carolina submitted SIP revisions,
including an attainment demonstration, on August 31, 2007, to
address nonattainment requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, South Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures,
emissions statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other
planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the York County Area. South Carolina withdrew the
August 31, 2007, attainment demonstration portion of the SIP for the
York County Area on December 22, 2008. On April 29, 2010, South
Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP, and provided
a supplement for the August 31, 2007, RFP plan for the York County
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the attainment
demonstration submissions (except RFP, emissions statements, and the
emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 for the York County
Area.\2\

Subsequently, EPA approved South Carolina's SIP revisions related to
the emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements for the
York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the EPA action
related to the emissions statements requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 37812 (June 25, 2012). For the EPA action
related to the emissions inventory requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012). Despite the determination
of attainment, South Carolina opted to leave the SIP submissions
related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS before
EPA for action. As such, EPA is taking action to approve South
Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as they
related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ South Carolina did not withdraw any elements related to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements, to the
extent that these requirements were addressed in the attainment
demonstration submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background for RFP

    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72
FR 31727), EPA published a rule entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule
To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline'' (hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule).
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's Phase 2 Rule \3\ require a
state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that is classified
as moderate, to submit an emissions inventory and a RFP plan to show
how the state will reduce emissions of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ RFP regulations are at 40 CFR 51.910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bi-state Charlotte Area had an attainment date of June 15, 2010
(i.e., that is beyond five years after designation), that was later
extended to June 15, 2011. See 76 FR 31245 (May 31, 2011). For a
moderate area with an attainment date of more than five years after
designation, the RFP plan must obtain a 15 percent reduction in ozone
precursor emissions for the first six years after the baseline year
(2002 through 2008). Since the York County Area did not have a previous
plan to address RFP requirements,\4\ the initial RFP requirement for
the Area must be met through VOC reductions as required by the 1990 CAA
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Some areas that were designated as moderate or above for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS may have implemented Rate of Progress plans
(i.e., plans similar to the RFP requirements) by which the area
would have achieved at least a 15 percent reduction in VOC from an
initial baseline. Such areas have the flexibility to met RFP
requirements through a reduction in VOC or nitrogen oxides, after
the initial achievement in a reduction of at least 15 percent for
VOC emissions for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), RFP plans must include
contingency measures that will take effect without further action by
the state or EPA, which includes additional controls that would be
implemented if the area fails to reach the RFP milestones. While the
CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions
reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that
implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year
inventory in the year following the RFP milestone year (i.e., in this
case 2008). For more information on contingency measures please see the
April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November
29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR
71612, 71650). Finally, RFP plans must also include a MVEB for the
precursors for which the plan is developed. See Section IV of this
rulemaking for more information on MVEB requirements.
    On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted
RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as
supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision) included an
attainment demonstration plan, RFP plan for 2008 milestone year,
contingency measures, RACT, RACM requirements, on-road VOC MVEB, and
the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were
subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the
comments received on the proposed SIPs. Today's rulemaking is approving
only the RFP plan, including the associated MVEB. The remainder of
South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions
were addressed by previous EPA actions, or by the State's withdrawal of
submissions that were no longer necessary.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the RFP plan for the York County Area?

    On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted
RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Below provides EPA's analysis of South
Carolina's RFP submissions.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. Because the York County Area as part of
the bi-state Charlotte Area did not implement the 15 percent VOC
reductions for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the requirement for South
Carolina to meet RFP is a 15 percent VOC reduction between 2002 and
2008 with continued progress toward attainment through attainment.\5\
EPA recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, and is
therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. South Carolina
submitted its 2002 base year emissions inventory on August 31, 2007. In
an action on May 18, 2012, EPA approved South Carolina's 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 29540. A summary of the York County Area 2002 base
year emissions inventories is included in Table 2 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2011, based on 2008-2010 data.

                                     Table 2--2002 Point and Area Sources Annual Emissions for the York County Area
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Point                       Area                      Non-road                     Mobile
                 County                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York (partial) *........................         11.1          7.29           2.2          7.48           4.9          3.19          13.8          6.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this emissions inventory
and thus is not taking comment on these inventories in the parallel
proposal to today's direct final action.

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels

    The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base
year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion
from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated
by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations
promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions
reductions are determined by the State using EPA's on-road mobile
source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6. The FMVCP and RVP emission
reductions are then removed from the base year inventory by the State,
resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions
needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the
adjusted base year inventory. These reductions are then subtracted from
the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for
the RFP milestone year (2008).
    For moderate areas like the York County Area (as part of the bi-
state Charlotte Area),\6\ the CAA specifies a 15 percent reduction in
ozone precursor emissions over an initial six year period following the
baseline inventory year. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this
requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In the
Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or
higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed
of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a
15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have met the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In
this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under
section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years
after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must provide
for a 15 percent emission reduction (either nitrogen oxides (NOx) and/
or VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year
period following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area that was
classified as moderate under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS contained the
counties of Gaston and Mecklenburg in North Carolina. Gaston and
Mecklenburg counties were also designated nonattainment as a part of
the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate bi-state Charlotte Area. Although a
portion of this Area was classified as moderate for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, a 15 percent rate of progress (ROP) plan was not submitted
for this Area due to its change in attainment status. Specifically,
North Carolina submitted a redesignation and maintenance plan
request instead before the due date of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ROP
plan. Therefore, because the bi-state Charlotte Area did not
implement a 15 percent ROP plan under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the
Area must have VOC reductions totaling at least 15 percent for the
first six years following the baseline inventory year of 2002 in
order for the RFP plan to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned earlier and according to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the
CAA, emission reductions that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules
promulgated prior to 1990 are not creditable for achieving RFP emission
reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by
subtracting the VOC and NOx emission reductions that are expected to
occur between 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and
RVP rules.
    In the Phase 2 Rule, promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612), EPA outlines Method 1 as the process that states should use to
show compliance with RFP for areas like the York County Area. A summary
of the steps for Method 1 is provided below.
     Step A is the actual anthropogenic base year VOC emissions
inventory in 2002.
     Step B is to account for creditable emissions for RFP.
     Step C is to calculate non-creditable emissions for RFP.
Non-creditable emissions include emissions from: (1) Motor vehicle
exhaust or evaporative emissions regulations promulgated by January 1,
1990; (2) regulations concerning RVP promulgated by November 15, 1990;
(3) RACT corrections required prior to November 1990; and (4)
corrective inspection and maintenance (I/M) plan required prior to
November 1990.
     Step D is the 2002 base year emissions (Step A) minus the
non-creditable emissions (Step C).
     Step E is to calculate the 2008 target level VOC
emissions. This is calculated by reducing the emissions from Step D by
15 percent.
     The estimated 2008 VOC emissions are then compared to the
2008 target level VOC emissions (Step E).
    As provided in South Carolina's August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as
supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision), the State utilized
the steps from Method 1 of the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, South
Carolina sets out its calculations in Section VI.B.2 of the August 31,
2007, plan and SC DHEC's April 29, 2010, SIP revision as summarized
below.
1. Step A: Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year VOC inventory in
2002 with all 2002 control programs in place for all sources.
    South Carolina provided this emission inventory in Table VI-1 of
the April 29, 2010, York County RFP plan, and as shown in Table 3,
below. As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this inventory. See
77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012).

                         Table 3--2002 VOC Emissions Inventory for the York County Area
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Point               Area             Nonroad             Mobile             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        York *               7.29               7.48               3.19               6.84              24.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

2. Step B: Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to
calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle
emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures
turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle I/M programs should be
set according to the program that was required to be in place in 1990.
Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi)
depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel RVP
regulations promulgated in June, 1990.
    South Carolina conducted the mobile modeling in accordance with the
directions outlined above for Step B. For the York County Area, the RVP
requirement was set at 9.0 psi. Currently, I/M is not required in the
York County Area, nor were there any outstanding obligations for the
State to correct deficiencies for an existing or required I/M program.
The York County Area was not designated nonattainment for the ozone
NAAQS until June 15, 2005, and thus did not have outstanding
requirements related I/M.
3. Step C: Calculate the difference between the 2002 and 2008 VOC
emission factors calculated in Step B and multiply by the 2002 vehicle
miles traveled. The result is the VOC emission calculation that will
occur between 2002 and 2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA
measures. These are the non-creditable reductions that occur over this
period.
    South Carolina calculated the non-creditable emission reductions
between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motor vehicle
emissions with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating
the difference. This difference resulted in 1.00 tpd and can be found
in Table VI-3 of the State's August 31, 2007, SIP revision.
4. Step D: Subtract the non-creditable reductions calculated in Step C
from the actual anthropogenic 2002 inventory estimated in Step A. This
adjusted VOC inventory is the basis for calculating the target level of
emissions in 2008.
    The adjusted VOC inventory for calculating the target level of VOC
emissions reductions for 2008 is 23.80 tpd (i.e., 24.80 tpd (i.e.,
result of Step A) and 1.00 tpd (i.e., the result of Step C)).
5. Step E: Reduce the adjusted VOC inventory calculated in Step D by 15
percent. The result is the target level of VOC emissions in 2008 in
order to meet the 2008 RFP requirement. The actual projected 2008
inventory for all sources with all control measures in place, including
projected 2008 growth in activity, must be at or lower than this target
level of emissions.
    The targeted level of emissions reductions for the York County Area
to meet RFP requirements is 3.57 tpd of VOC (i.e, 23.80 tpd multiplied
by 15 percent). Thus the required targeted level of VOC emissions is
20.23 tpd for the York County Area.

C. Final Analysis of South Carolina's RFP Analysis for the York County
Area

    As mentioned above, the required target level for the York County
Area to meet the initial RFP plan requirement is a 15 percent reduction
in VOC emissions for 2008 from the VOC emissions in 2002 (as adjusted
per CAA requirements). Specifically, to meet this requirement, South
Carolina needed to demonstrate a reduction of at least 3.57 tpd. Table
4 below summarizes the results of South Carolina's calculations for
this RFP analysis.

            Table 4--York County Area 15 Percent RFP Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Step from Method 1                Matrix              VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step A........................  Total 2002 Base Year               24.80
                                 Anthropogenic VOC
                                 Emissions.
Step C........................  Non-Creditable VOC                  1.00
                                 reductions.
Step D........................  2002 Base Year minus the           23.80
                                 Non-Creditable
                                 Emissions.
Step E........................  2008 Target Level of VOC           20.23
                                 Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its August 31, 2007, SIP revision, South Carolina calculated the
2008 VOC emissions inventory for the York County Area. This emissions
inventory is provided below in Table 5 below.

                         Table 5--2008 VOC Emissions Inventory for the York County Area
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point              Area           Nonroad         Mobile           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York *....................  3.60................            7.90            2.40            3.94           17.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

    As discussed above, the required target for VOC emissions for the
year 2008 for South Carolina to meet the RFP requirements for York
County is 20.23 tpd (i.e., 15 percent reduction from the adjusted 2002
baseline). As revealed in Table 5, South Carolina calculated an
emissions inventory of 17.84 tpd of VOC for York County in 2008, which
is well below the 20.23 tpd required target. Thus, EPA is making the
determination that South Carolina's SIP revision demonstrates the
required progress towards attainment for the York County Area as part
of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In today's action, EPA is approving
South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as
meeting the CAA and EPA's regulations regarding RFP.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County
Area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and 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 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 or any interim milestones. 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 areas
that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have
since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan
for that NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment
demonstrations) and maintenance plans create MVEB for criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and
trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the target
year and precursor pollutant of the RFP (i.e., in this case, for the
target year of 2008 and for VOC). A state may adopt MVEB for other
precursors as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions in the RFP plan 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 how to revise the
MVEB.
    After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for
the York County Area, South Carolina developed VOC MVEB for the year
2008. Specifically, South Carolina developed these MVEB, as required,
for the target year and precursor--2008 and VOC--for the RFP plan. The
York County Area MVEB for the 2008 RFP plan are based on the projected
2008 mobile source emissions accounting for all mobile control
measures. The 2008 VOC MVEB are defined in Table 6 below.

    Table 6--York County, South Carolina* 1997 8-Hour Ozone VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2008                    2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  York County (partial county) VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               VOC               6.053 tpd               5,493 kgd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the
  nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the 2008 VOC MVEB for the
York County Area because EPA has made the determination that the Area
is on target to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions
at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEB for the York County Area
are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they
must be used for future conformity determinations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the Metropolitan Planning Organization's long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. After
thorough review, EPA has previously determined that the budgets meet
the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) (see 77 FR
33454, June 6, 2012), and is now approving the budgets because they are
consistent with RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the year 2008.

V. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the 2008 VOC
MVEB for the York County Area?

    When reviewing a submitted ``control strategy'' SIP, RFP or
maintenance plan containing a MVEB, EPA may 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 must 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 a 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 determination. This process
for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEB for transportation
conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999,
guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the
adequacy process 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). Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes,'' 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
    As discussed earlier, South Carolina's RFP plan submission includes
VOC MVEB for the York County Area for the year 2008. EPA reviewed the
VOC MVEB through the adequacy process. The South Carolina SIP
submission, including the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County Area, was
open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on May 13, 2010,
found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2008 VOC
MVEB for the York County Area closed on June 14, 2010. EPA received
comments during the adequacy process. These comments were addressed
through the adequacy process, and EPA's responses to these comments can
be found on EPA's adequacy Web site.
    In a letter sent on May 25, 2012, EPA notified SC DHEC that the
MOBILE6.2-based 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County Area were determined
to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. On June 6, 2012,
EPA published its adequacy notice in the Federal Register (77 FR
33454). When EPA found the 2008 VOC MVEB adequate, this triggered a
requirement that the new MVEB are used for future transportation
conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis
years beyond 2008, the applicable budgets are the 2008 VOC MVEB. The
2008 VOC MVEB are defined in sections I and IV of this rulemaking.

VI. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of two SIP
revisions, submitted on August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, by the
State of South Carolina, through the SC DHEC to meet the RFP
requirements for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, EPA is approving the VOC MVEB for the York County Area
that were including in South Carolina's RFP plan. These

actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment 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 comment be filed. This rule will be effective on December 14,
2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment
by November 14, 2012. 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 on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no
such comments are received, the public is advised this rule will be
effective on December 14, 2012 and no further action will be taken on
the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 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 final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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).

In addition, this RFP for the York County Area does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects
on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located
within the York County Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes today's action will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 2, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding new entries to the end of
the table for ``York County 1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further
progress plan'' and ``Update for York County 1997 8-hour ozone
reasonable further progress plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          State effective
               Provision                       date             EPA Approval date             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
York County 1997 8-hour ozone                    08/31/07  10/15/12 [Insert citation   Original submission.
 reasonable further progress plan.                          of publication].
Update for York County 1997 8-hour               04/29/10  10/15/12 [Insert citation   Original submission
 ozone reasonable further progress plan.                    of publication].            updated to include
                                                                                required 2008 VOC MVEB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-25172 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 5, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2003-16556

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   Continental Airlines, Inc.  filed  11/19/03   for:

XX  Exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between any point or points in the United States, and any point or
points in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, directly or via intermediate
points and beyond Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to any point or points in
third countries, and to combine this authority with its existing
certificate and exemption authority.  Continental initially intends to
operate this service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Maersk
but seeks broad authority to operate its own flights as well as offering
code-share service.

Applicant rep:  R. Bruce Keiner<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   April 5, 2004, through
April 5, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The exemption authority granted is consistent with the aviation
agreements between the United States and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway,
and Sweden).

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  	XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	              XX  Statement of authorization approving
Continental/Maersk operations, dated

		       April 5, 2004, and conditions therein

_____________________________________

Conditions:  The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond
points is limited to countries with which the United States has signed
open-skies agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds
authority to serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the
Department, and for which it holds route integration authority, by
virtue of either the present action or other action of the Department,
and is subject to all conditions attached to that authority.

2

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this authority shall be consistent with the
applicable bilateral aviation agreements between the United States

and the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the
award of the authority requested should be construed as conferring upon
Continental additional rights (including code-share, fifth-freedom

intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier
entry is limited unless Continental first notifies the Department of its
intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has
completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which
carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should
there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights
that are included in Continental’s authority by virtue of the route
integration and blanket code-share authority granted here, but that are
not then being used by Continental, the holding of such authority will
not be considered as providing any preference for Continental in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond points is limited
to countries with which the United States has signed open-skies
agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to
serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the department, and for
which it holds route integration authority, by virtue of either the
present action or other action of the Department, and is subject to all
conditions attached to that authority.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found Continental qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003


[Federal Register: November 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 69329-69330]
[DOCID:fr15no05-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-81-000]

Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

November 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, Overthrust Pipeline Company
(Overthrust), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 48, with an
effective date of December 5, 2005.
    Overthrust states that copies of this filing were served upon
Overthrust's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the
Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6289 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P