[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19483-19485]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0177]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Havasu Gran Prix; Lake Havasu, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the navigable waters of Lake Havasu for the Lake Havasu Gran Prix. The
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide safety for the
participants, crew, rescue personnel, and other users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective directly after the conclusion of the
Desert Storm Shootout marine event boat race, from approximately 1:00
p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0177]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable and
contrary to public interest. The logistical details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the events to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to public interest because it would
inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels
from the hazards associated with a maritime high speed boat race, which
are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.
    The Lake Havasu Gran Prix will consist of 25 powerboats racing
around a closed circuit course for a specified amount of laps on a
portion of Lake Havasu located adjacent to and west of Thompson Bay,
off of the peninsula of Pittsburg Point. This racing location in Lake
Havasu is in a different location than past years. This annual event
will also occur directly after the conclusion of the approved annual
marine event Desert Storm Shootout.
    The Lake Havasu Grand Prix requires a safety zone while the
participants are on the course, thus restricting vessel traffic within
a portion of Lake Havasu during the four hours scheduled for the race.
There will be fifteen patrol vessels provided by the sponsor to patrol
the boundaries of the safety zone.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 26, 2014 directly
after the conclusion of the Desert Storm Shootout. The limits of the
safety zone will include a portion of Lake Havasu with an eastern zone
line from Algoma Pier Head Lighthouse southeast to the point just west
of Grass Island encompassed by the following coordinates:

34[deg]26'51'' N, 114[deg]20'41'' W
34[deg]27'17'' N, 114[deg]20'51'' W

    The western zone line is from Split Rock Lighthouse southwest to
the closest peninsula on the California side illustrated by the
following coordinates:

34[deg]27'18'' N, 114[deg]22'34'' W
34[deg]26'55'' N, 114[deg]22'59'' W

    The coordinates for the Lake Havasu Grand Prix are the same
coordinates for the Desert Storm shootout, held earlier in the day and
restricting boating traffic. Both the Lake Havasu Grand Prix and the
Desert Storm Shootout are reoccurring marine events listed in 33 CFR
100.1102 (Table 1). Use of a Safety Zone is established because a
notice of enforcement of a marine event special local regulation would
be inaccurate for the following reasons. First, 33 CFR 100.1102 Table 1
discussed the Lake Havasu Grand Prix occurring in a different location
of the waterway. Second, the normally annual event did not occur the
previous year. For these reasons, a safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of participants, crew, rescue personnel, and other users
of the waterway.
    For the safety zone, persons and vessels will be prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will
publish a local notice to mariners (LNM).

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This determination is based on the safety zone being of
a limited duration of no more than four hours, limited to a relatively
small geographic area of Lake Havasu, and occurring directly after the
conclusion of Desert Storm Shootout.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the Colorado
River from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on April 26, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
safety zone impacts a relatively small area. Small entities can conduct
their activities in areas not impacted by this event by transiting
around the event or gaining permission by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative for an escort through the race area. This
event included planning with various stakeholders prior to the event
permit request was submitted. Finally, before the effective period, the
Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves

establishment of a safety zone on the navigable waters of Lake Havasu.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-631 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-631  Safety zone; Lake Havasu Gran Prix, Lake Havasu, AZ

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include a portion
of Lake Havasu with an eastern zone line from Algoma Pier Head
Lighthouse southeast to the point just west of Grass Island,
illustrated by the following coordinates: 34[deg]26'51'' N,
114[deg]20'41'' W; 34[deg]27'17'' N, 114[deg]20'51'' W. The western
zone line is from Split Rock Lighthouse southwest to the closest
peninsula on the California side illustrated by the following
coordinates: 34[deg]27'18'' N, 114[deg]22'34'' W; 34[deg]26'55'' N,
114[deg]22'59'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective directly after the
conclusion of the Desert Storm Shootout from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
April 26, 2014.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may initiate request authorization to do so from the event sponsor
who may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 26 2014.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-07922 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73064-73065]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23416]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-420, OMB Control No. 3235-0479]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension Rule: 15c2-7

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-7 (17 CFR 240.15c2-
7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c2-7 places disclosure requirements on broker-dealers who
have correspondent relationships, or agreements identified in the Rule,
with other broker-dealers. Whenever any such broker-dealer enters a
quotation for a security through an inter-dealer quotation system, Rule
15c2-7 requires the broker-dealer to disclose these relationships and
agreements in the manner required by the Rule. The inter-dealer
quotation system must also be able to make these disclosures public in
association with the quotation the broker-dealer is making.
    When Rule 15c2-7 was adopted in 1964, the information it requires
was necessary for execution of the Commission's mandate under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative,
and deceptive acts by broker-dealers. In the absence of the information
collection required under Rule 15c2-7, investors and broker-dealers
would have been unable to accurately determine the market depth of, and
demand for, securities in an inter-dealer quotation system.
    There are approximately 3,493 broker-dealers registered with the
Commission. Any of these broker-dealers could be potential respondents
for Rule 15c2-7, so the Commission is using that figure to represent
the number of respondents. Rule 15c2-7 applies only to quotations
entered into an inter-dealer quotation system, such as OTC Link,
operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (``OTC Link''). According to a
representative of OTC Link, it has not received any Rule 15c2-7 notices
since the previous PRA extension for Rule 15c2-7 in 2020; nor does OTC
Link anticipate receiving any Rule 15c2-7 notices. However, because
such notices could be made, the Commission estimates that one filing is
made annually pursuant to Rule 15c2-7.
    Based on prior industry reports, the Commission estimates that the
average time required to enter a disclosure pursuant to the Rule is .75
minutes, or 45 seconds. The Commission sees no reason to change this
estimate. We estimate that impacted respondents spend a total of .0125
hours per year to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-7 (1 notice
(x) 45 seconds/notice).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
December 26, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and

Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or send an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 19, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23416 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1Section 182( b)( 3) specifies that EPA would approve any request from a State to reclassify to a higher classification.

1 Technical Support Document for Richmond, Virginia September 2004 1.0 Summary The EPA designated this area as moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8 hour ozone values ( design value is 94 ppb). On July 12, 2004 the Virginia Department of the Environmental Quality submitted a request to reclassify Richmond from moderate to marginal ozone nonattainment.

2.0 Introduction This section describes the statutory provisions and EPA guidance regarding reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 181( a)( 4) and 182( b)( 3) of the Clean Air Act provide that areas may be reclassified under certain circumstances. This technical support document addresses the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) and a specific request for reclassifications received by the State of Indiana. The EPA has not received any requests for reclassification under section 182( b)( 3) for the 8 hour ozone standard. 1 Under section 181( a)( 4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified " if an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based." In the April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that an area with a moderate design value of 96 ppb ( or less) would be eligible to request a bump down because five percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a marginal design value.

The EPA previously described criteria to implement the section 181( a)( 4) provisions in a final rule designating and classifying areas published on November 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 56698). As stated in that notice, the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) set out general criteria and grant the Administrator broad discretion in making or determining not to make, a reclassification. As part of the 1991 action, EPA developed more specific criteria to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reclassify a particular area. The EPA also described these criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. The general and specific criteria are as follows: 2 General: The EPA may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Request by State: The EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to bump down areas on EPA's own initiative. Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State to submit a request for a bump down. A Tribe may also submit such a request and, in the case of a multi state nonattainment area, all affected States must submit the reclassification request.

Discontinuity: A five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas. In particular, in light of the areawide nature of ozone formation, a reclassification should not create a " donut hole" where an area of one classification is surrounded by areas of higher classification.

Attainment: Evidence should be available that the proposed area would be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification in the case of a bump down.

Emissions reductions: Evidence should be available that the area would be very likely to achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary in order to attain in the shorter time period for a bump down.

Trends: Near and long term trends in emissions and air quality should support a reclassification. Historical air quality data should indicate substantial air quality improvement for a bump down. Growth projections and emission trends should support a bump down. In addition, we will consider whether vehicle miles traveled and other indicators of emissions are increasing at higher than normal rates.

Years of data: For the 8 hour ozone standard, the 2001 2003 period is central to determining classification. Data from 2004 may be used to corroborate a bump down request but should not be the sole foundation for the bump down request.

Limitations on Bump Downs An area may only be reclassified to the next lower classification. An area cannot present data from other 3 years as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification. In addition, section 181( a)( 4) does not permit moving areas from subpart 2 into subpart 1.

In 1991, EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement ( a request by the State to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria and did not violate any of the criteria ( emissions, reductions, trends, etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on designations and classifications, we stated our intention to use this method and these criteria once again to evaluate reclassification requests under section 181( a)( 4), with minor changes described in that notice. In that notice we also described how we applied these criteria in 1991. For additional information, see section 5, " Areas requesting a 5% downshift per § 181( a)( 4) and EPA's response to those requests," of the Technical Support Document, October 1991, for the 1991 rule. [ Docket A 90 42A.]

The EPA is not basing this reclassification determination on consideration of whether the nonattainment area being reclassified does or does not cause any pollution transport. The EPA is presently addressing ozone pollution transport issues throughout the eastern part of the United States under other Clean Air Act provisions. Specifically, EPA has proposed a determination that emissions from certain states contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment for ozone under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D) through the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The CAIR proposal, published in a Federal Register notice dated January 30, 2004, would require upwind States to eliminate emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States. 69 Fed. Reg. 454566. The EPA previously issued the NOx SIP call ( 63 FR 57356) to address interstate ozone transport. In the event of any intrastate transport issue, states have the obligation to develop attainment SIPs for each area that show timely attainment, and can address any intrastate transport issues in that context.

The April 30, 2004 notice invited States to submit the reclassification requests within 30 days of the effective date of the designations and classifications. The effective date was June 15 which means that reclassification requests were to be submitted by July 15, 2004. This relatively short time frame is necessary because section 181( a)( 4) only authorizes the Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification, September 15, 2004.

3.0 Background 4 The EPA designated this area as moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8 hour ozone values ( design value is 94 ppb). On July 12, 2004 the Virginia Department of the Environmental Quality submitted a request to reclassify Richmond from moderate to marginal ozone nonattainment. The Richmond, VA moderate ozone nonattainment area consists of five counties ( Charles City, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Prince George) and four independent cities ( Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond). This area is adjacent to the southeast edge of the Washington D. C. moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment area.

4.0 Reclassification Request by State The Virginia DEQ supports their reclassification request with analyses of ambient air quality monitoring data and trends in the area, various DEQ and EPA modeling exercises which indicate that the area is likely to attain the 8 hour ozone as soon as 2007, and an emissions analysis which indicates that substantial emission reductions will be achieved in the area by 2007.

5.0 EPA Review of Reclassification Request 5.1 Request by State On July 12, 2004, Virginia DEQ submitted a request to EPA to bump down the Richmond, VA moderate ozone nonattainment area from " moderate" to " marginal."

5.2 Discontinuity The Richmond, VA moderate ozone nonattainment area consists of five counties ( Charles City, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Prince George) and four independent cities ( Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond). This area is adjacent to the southeast edge of the Washington D. C. moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. To the northeast of Richmond, and across the Chesapeake Bay, is the Philadelphia moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. Richmond is also adjacent to and located to the northwest of the Norfolk Virginia Beach, VA subpart 1 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. Reclassification of the Richmond area will not create a discontinuity since there would be no area of one classification surrounded by areas of a higher classification.

5.3 Attainment The modeling performed by Virginia for demonstrating attainment in Richmond by 2007 was based on modeling conducted for the 5 Roanoke, VA EAC. While not optimized for the Richmond area, this modeling can be used to indicate whether Richmond might attain by 2007. However, VA found errors in the emissions inventory. Virginia re ran their EAC modeling with improved emissions data. The revised EAC modeling projects attainment in the Richmond area in 2007. The highest of these projected design values is 84.1 ppb for the Hanover monitor.

To provide additional evidence that the Richmond area is likely to attain in 2007, relative reduction factors were developed by the State based on the NOx SIP call and the Heavy Duty Diesel Rule modeling for the Richmond area, resulting in projected 2007 ozone design values of 81.5 ppb and 82.5 ppb, respectively. Because the CAIR regional modeling uses more up to date data and methodologies than the NOx SIP Call or Heavy Duty Diesel Rule modeling, EPA is not relying on these two older analyses for purposes of the bump down.

The EPA's January 2004 CAIR modeling projects Richmond's ozone concentrations to be well below the ozone standard in 2010 ( 77 ppb). Although neither analysis is as comprehensive an assessment as would be expected with a SIP attainment demonstration, together they provide support that the Richmond area will attain the ozone standard by 2007.

5.4 Emission Reductions On August 30, 2004, the Director of Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality submitted a letter to EPA ( followed up by a letter on September 2, 2004 from the VA Air Director) committing to adopt additional emission control measures to reduce ozone levels. Several of these measures are already in place in the smaller 1 hour Richmond ozone nonattainment area or in the northern Virginia ( Washington D. C.) 1 hour ozone nonattainment area. This letter stated that control measures such as reformulated gasoline, stage I, and existing source RACT regulations would be extended into the larger Richmond 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. The northern Virginia control measures ( solvent cleaning, architectural and maintenance coatings, motor vehicle refinishing, and portable fuel containers) would be studied and the process of adoption for the Richmond 8 hour ozone nonattainment area would commence. Therefore, the emissions trend is expected to decrease due to the implementation of various local, regional, and national rules.

In the Richmond area, Virginia has implemented RACT and NSR requirements under the 1 hour ozone standard. Richmond was redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour ozone standard on 6 December 17, 1997 ( 62 FR 61237). Richmond, VA was designated a moderate 1hour ozone nonattainment area in 1991 by EPA ( 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991) but in 1997, EPA made a determination that the Richmond area was monitoring attainment of the 1 hour ozone standard and made inapplicable certain Part D requirements, including RFP and attainment demonstration requirements ( 62 FR 52029, October 6, 1997). EPA's determination of inapplicability of certain Part D requirements was made using a May 10, 1995 EPA memorandum (" Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard"). As a result, Richmond did not implement I/ M or NOx RACT and did not complete a 15% plan or attainment demonstration as a moderate 1hr ozone nonattainment area.

5.5 Trends The 2004 ozone data in the Richmond areas show that a downward trend in ozone concentrations is continuing. This data ( to date) show that one monitor is in attainment and the remaining three area monitors are within the marginal nonattainment range as shown by the updated design values ( 2002 2004) provided below:

Richmond Ozone Monitor Design Values ( 2002 to 2004) Chesterfield 82 ppb ( attainment) Henrico 85 ppb ( marginal nonattainment) Hanover 90 ppb ( marginal nonattainment) Charles City 87 ppb ( marginal nonattainment)

It can be expected that ozone values will decline due to the implementation of local, regional, and national rules relative to ozone levels in recent years.

From the 8 hour ozone designations analysis, population growth ( from 1990 to 2001) in the Richmond area varies but in general there is moderate growth ( relative to other Region III counties) in the counties and a reduction in population in the independent cities. VMT growth also varies depending on the specific county/ independent city but overall, VMT growth is moderate, when compared to other Region III counties.

5.6 Years of Data Virginia has appropriately evaluated Richmond based on the 2003 ozone design value, which uses ozone data from 2001, 2002 and 2003. The 2003 ozone design value for Richmond, VA is 94 ppb.

5.7 Additional Information 7 In addition to the technical information and analyses provided as part of this process, the State plans to proactively evaluate and implement additional controls in the Richmond area to further improve local and regional air quality. First, because the geographic area of the Richmond nonattainment area has increased under the 8 hour ozone standard, the State will begin the process to extend certain nonattainment requirements to the additional jurisdictions involved to satisfy basic nonattainment requirements and area equity issues. These jurisdictions include Charles City County, Prince George County, and the City of Petersburg. This action will include the implementation of such measures as reformulated gasoline, stage I vapor recovery, and other existing source ( RACT) controls. The State hopes to have these measures implemented in the extended area by the summer of 2006. The State will initiate the process of extending some or all of the " Ozone Transport" controls on various area sources to the Richmond area. These measures have been or are being adopted in the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington, D. C. 1 hour ozone nonattainment area. However, because the Lead Planning Organization ( LPO) for the Richmond area has not yet been established, the State's commitment is contingent upon the review and discussion of these controls by this group. Measures that are formally selected in the Richmond area may be implemented by the summer of 2006. Beyond the controls mentioned above, the Virginia Legislature has initiated the evaluation of two additional ozone precursor control programs. First, a report and plan has been developed for the implementation of a remote sensing program for vehicle emissions in several areas of Virginia, including Richmond. Second, the agency is currently working with interested parties and plans to support a utility bill similar to the North Carolina " Clean Smokestacks" program.

5.8 Conclusions The following factors support the request for reclassification to marginal for the Richmond area: the design value of 94 ppb meets our criteria to qualify for consideration of bump down, local and regional modeling together with declining emissions from local, regional and national regulations support the conclusion that Richmond is likely to attain by 2007.

5.9 EPA Action Thhe request meets certain criteria EPA established ( request, discontinuity, emission reductions, attainment, and data) and does not violate any of the criteria ( trends). Therefore, EPA is approving the reclassification request for the Richmond area. 8 6.0 Additional Information Additional information regarding the bump down request for this area is contained in the docket for this action. This information includes the State request, supporting documents, and other necessary material.