[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78902-78908]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0202; FRL-10511-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Murray County Area Limited
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD), on October 20, 2021. The SIP revision includes the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the portion of Murray County, Georgia,
previously designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(hereinafter referred to as the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
Area or Murray County Area or Area). EPA is proposing to approve the
Murray County Area LMP because it provides for the maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Murray County Area through the end
of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. The effect of
this action would be to make certain commitments related to maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Murray County Area federally
enforceable as part of the Georgia SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0202 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. Georgia's SIP Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Georgia's SIP Submittal
    A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Plan
    E. Conclusion
V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the LMP for the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area
submitted by Georgia EPD as a revision to the Georgia SIP on October
20, 2021. In 2004, the Murray County Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 15,
2004.\1\ See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004). Subsequently, in 2007, this
Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with EPA's approval of the first maintenance plan demonstrating
attainment through the initial 10-year period. The Murray County LMP is
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Murray
County Area through the end of the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period beyond redesignation. EPA is proposing to approve
the plan because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA
sections 110 and 175A. As a general matter, the Murray County Area LMP
relies on the same control measures and relevant contingency provisions
to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year
portion of the maintenance period as the maintenance plan submitted by
Georgia EPD for the first 10-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area is located
entirely within the Chattahoochee National Forest area of Murray
County, Georgia. The Area consists of all mountain peaks within the
Chattahoochee National Forest that have an elevation greater than or
equal to 2,400 feet and that are enclosed by contour lines that
close on themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and in adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma and other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, increased medication use,
doctor visits, and emergency department visits, and increased hospital
admissions for individuals with lung disease. Children are at a higher
level of risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still
developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors, which
increases their exposure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010, and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm),\3\ averaged
over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18,
1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\4\ EPA set the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be more
protective of human health, especially for children and adults who are
active outdoors and for individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 0.12 ppm converts to 120 parts per billion (ppb). 1 ppm =
1,000 ppb.
    \4\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and strengthened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and strengthened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Murray
County Area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
designation became effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April
30, 2004).
    Similarly, on July 20, 2012, EPA designated areas as
unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Murray County Area was designated as attainment for the 2008
8-hour ozone standard with an effective date of July 20, 2012. See 77
FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    In addition, on November 16, 2017, EPA designated areas for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Murray County area was designated as
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard with an
effective date of January 16, 2018. See 82 FR 54232 (November 16, 2017)
and 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    A state may submit a request to redesignate a nonattainment area
that is attaining a NAAQS to attainment, and, if the area has met the
criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may approve
the redesignation request.\5\ One of the criteria for redesignation is
for the area to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA
section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans. The Calcagni memo \6\ provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at 9. EPA clarified in
three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas can meet the CAA
section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that
they are unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using information
such as area design values \7\ when they

are significantly below the standard and have been historically
stable.\8\ EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined
demonstration as a limited maintenance plan (LMP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone area is the
highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \8\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, OAQPS, dated
November 16, 1994; `` Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS,
dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs
have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS.
As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must
still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including an attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state
seeking an LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a
revision to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures.
While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect
to certain NAAQS,\9\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section
175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the
previous guidance memos.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The prior memos addressed: unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
    \10\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (approval of the
second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve the Murray County LMP
because Georgia has made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP
guidance, that the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area's ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable and that the Area has met the other maintenance
plan requirements. Georgia EPD submitted this LMP for the Murray County
Area to fulfill the CAA's second maintenance plan requirement. EPA's
evaluation of the Murray County Area LMP is presented in section IV
below.
    In June of 2007, Georgia EPD submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal contained a
plan, for inclusion in the Georgia SIP, to provide for maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area through 2018. EPA approved
Georgia's Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area maintenance plan
and the State's request to redesignate the Area to attainment effective
November 15, 2007.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 72 FR 58538 (October 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a second 10-
year maintenance plan as a revision to the first maintenance plan eight
years after redesignation to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for
ten additional years following the end of the first 10-year period.
However, EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that a consequence
of that revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\12\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that second maintenance
plans were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas'' (i.e., areas
that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (maintenance areas) and were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS). South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states
with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period.
Accordingly, through a letter dated October 20, 2021, Georgia submitted
a second maintenance plan covering the Murray County Area that provides
for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Murray County
Area well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Georgia EPD chose the LMP
option for the development of its second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance plan for the Area. On October 20, 2021, Georgia EPD adopted
this second 10-year maintenance plan and subsequently submitted the
Murray County LMP to EPA as a revision to the Georgia SIP.

III. Georgia's SIP Submittal

    Georgia's October 20, 2021, submittal includes the LMP, air quality
data, a summary of the previous emissions inventory and a conclusion
regarding future emission levels, and attachments, as well as
certification of adoption of the plan by Georgia EPD. Attachments to
the plan include documentation of notice, opportunity for hearing and
public participation prior to adoption of the plan by Georgia EPD, and
state legal authority. The LMP notes that Georgia's submittal for the
remainder of the 20-year maintenance period for the Murray County Area
is in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision overturning aspects of
EPA's Implementation Plan rule.
    The Murray County Area LMP does not include any additional
emissions reduction measures but relies on the same emissions reduction
strategy as the first 10-year maintenance plan that provides for the
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. Prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements and control measures
contained in the SIP will continue to apply, and federal measures
(e.g., Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards) will continue
to be implemented.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Georgia's SIP Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Murray County Area LMP, which is designed to
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Murray County Area
through the end of the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as required
under CAA section 175A(b). The following is a more detailed summary of
EPA's interpretation of the section 175A requirements \13\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Calcagni memo at 7-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOC and
NOX, as these pollutants are

precursors to ozone formation. The Murray County LMP also includes an
ozone attainment inventory for Murray County \14\ generated from the
data EPA made available from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) and that Georgia represents as 2014 summer tons.\15\ Table 1
presents a summary of the inventory for 2014 contained in the LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Murray County Area is the portion of Murray County that
consists of all mountain peaks within the Chattahoochee National
Forest that have an elevation greater than or equal to 2,400 feet
and that are enclosed by contour lines that close on themselves.
    \15\ Georgia defines summer tons as the total cumulative
emissions from May through September.
    \16\ The totals represented in the table may be slightly
different than the inventories in the LMP based on rounding
convention.

   Table 1--2014 VOC and NOX Emissions (Summer Tons) for Murray County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014
                         Sector                         ----------------
                                                           NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire...................................................        0       0
Nonpoint...............................................       77     224
Nonroad................................................       37      45
Onroad.................................................      260     190
Point..................................................       60      28
                                                        ----------------
  Total \16\...........................................      433     487
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Attainment Emissions Inventory section of the Murray County
Area LMP describes the methods, models, and assumptions used to develop
the attainment inventory and notes that Georgia EPD relied on version 2
of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) (2014NEIv2) from EPA
2014 version 7.0 modeling platform.\17\ Area source emissions were
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of
collective activity, such as fuel usage, and were estimated on the
county level. Nonroad mobile source emissions in the 2014NEIv2, in
part, were estimated using the latest version of the EPA's motor
vehicles emission model, MOVES (which includes estimates nonroad
emissions like agriculture, commercial and mining, industrial and
recreational equipment, and commercial and residential lawn and garden
equipment). Locomotives, aircraft, and marine nonroad sources are not
included in MOVES, and Georgia EPD relied on EPA-generated emissions
data for these sectors.\18\ Onroad mobile sources in the 2014NEIv2 were
estimated using MOVES and the latest planning assumptions regarding
vehicle type, vehicle activity, and vehicle speeds to estimate
vehicular emissions for 2014. Georgia EPD's estimates of vehicle
emissions reflect emissions inventories and ancillary data files used
for emissions modeling, as well as the meteorological, initial
condition, and boundary condition files need to run the air quality
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Documentation and data for the 2014 NEIv2 can be accessed
via the following website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data. The 2014
summer emissions data for the Murray County Area are from the EPA
2014 version 7.0 modeling platform, which is based on the National
Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI version 2) and are available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.
    \18\ EPA developed emissions data for these sectors based on AP-
42 emissions factors and information supplied by the Eastern
Regional Technical Advisory Committee for locomotives and Federal
Aviation Administration's Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System
(since replaced by the Aviation Environmental Design Tool).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Georgia to develop the inventory, as well as our review of the 2014
summer emissions data, EPA proposes to find that the Murray County 1997
ozone NAAQS LMP includes a comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventory
of actual ozone precursor emissions in attainment year 2014, and
proposes to conclude that this is acceptable for the purposes of a
subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in a LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation
over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\19\ These criteria
are evaluated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, OAQPS, dated
November 16, 1994; ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS,
dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Concentrations
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. EPA
evaluated quality assured and certified 2018-2020 monitoring data
(which was the most recent quality assured and certified data at the
time of submission) and determined that the 2018-2020 design value for
the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area was 0.062 ppm, or 74
percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (measured at the
Fort Mountain, Cohutta Overlook monitor in Murray County, Georgia (AQS
ID: 13-213-0003)). Based on quality assured and certified monitoring
data for 2019-2021 (the most recent quality assured and certified
data), the current design value for the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS Area is 0.062 ppm, or 74 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (measured at the Fort Mountain, Cohutta Overlook monitor in
Murray County, Georgia (AQS ID: 13-213-0003)). Consistent with prior
guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent air quality design value
for the area is at a level that is well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85
percent of the NAAQS, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), then EPA
considers the state to have met the section 175A requirement for a
demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Such a demonstration assumes continued applicability of PSD
requirements and any control measures already in the SIP and that
Federal measures will remain in place through the end of the second 10-
year maintenance period, absent a showing consistent with section
110(l) that such measures are not necessary to assure maintenance.
    Table 2 presents the design values for the monitor in the Murray
County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area over the 2010-2021 period. As
shown, the site has been below the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during this time, and the most current design value is below the level
of 85 percent of the NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.

                    Table 2--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (DV) (ppb) at the Monitoring Site in the Murray County 1997 Ozone NAAQS Area for the 2010-2021 Time Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008-    2009-    2010-    2011-    2012-    2013-    2014-    2015-    2016-    2017-    2018-    2019-
                Location                  County (state)/tribal land    AQS site ID   2010 DV  2011 DV  2012 DV  2013 DV  2014 DV  2015 DV  2016 DV  2017 DV  2018 DV  2019 DV  2020 DV  2021 DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Mountain, Cohutta Overlook Monitor.  Murray County (Georgia)...     13-213-0003       73       71       72       68       66       64       65       65       65       65       62       62
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ozone monitor located in the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Area at Fort Mountain, Cohutta Overlook (AQS Site ID 13-2013-0003) began operation in 1999 and provided
  data for the 1997 8-hour ozone designation finalized in 2004.

Therefore, the Murray County Area is eligible for the LMP option, and
EPA proposes to find that the long record of monitored ozone
concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the continuation of
existing VOC and NOX emissions control programs, adequately
provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Murray County Area through the second 10-year maintenance period and
beyond.
2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Murray County Area has maintained ozone
concentrations below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the past fifteen
3-year design value periods.\20\ Additionally, the design value data
shown in Table 2 illustrates that ozone levels have been relatively
stable over this timeframe, with a modest downward trend. For example,
the data in Table 2 indicate that the largest year-over-year change in
design value at any one monitor during these twelve design value years
was 0.004 ppm, which occurred between the 2010-2012 design value and
the 2011-2013 design value, representing approximately a 5 percent
decrease at monitor 13-213-0013 (Fort Mountain, Cohutta Overlook). At
this monitor, four design values spanning over six years remained
steady at 0.065 ppm, which occurred between the 2014-2016 design value
through 2017-2019 design value. Furthermore, there is an overall
downward trend in design values for the Murray County Area. This
downward trend in ozone levels, coupled with the relatively small,
year-over-year variation in ozone design values, makes it reasonable to
conclude that the Murray County Area will not exceed the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Murray County Area has maintained ozone concentrations
below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS since 2007 when the Area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See Air
Quality Design Values, Previous Design Value Reports, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#previous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring networks operated and
maintained by the states in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The network
plans, which are submitted annually to EPA, are consistent with the
ambient air quality monitoring network assessment. The Murray County
1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area was designated nonattainment due to ozone
concentrations at the monitor located at Fort Mountain in the
Chattahoochee National Forest.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) (final designation action
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) and https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/1997-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-nonattainment (monitoring data associated with the
designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a CAA section 103 grant agreement with EPA, Georgia has
operated this monitor since 1999, following EPA's promulgation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA provides oversight of the State's
operation of this monitor on an annual basis through normal grant
monitoring activities. Georgia operates a network plan that includes
this monitor. The annual network plan developed by Georgia follows a
public notification and review process. EPA has reviewed and approved
Georgia's 2021 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan (``2021 Annual
Network Plan''), which addresses the monitor used to determine
attainment for the Murray County 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Area.\22\
Separately, Georgia has committed to maintaining the monitor within the
Murray County Area.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See October 19, 2021, letter and approval from Caroline
Freeman, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 4 to Karen
Hays, Chief, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department
of Natural Resources, available in the docket for this proposed
action.
    \23\ See 72 FR 49679 (August 29, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of an area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, Georgia's 2021 Annual
Network Plan, which covers the monitor within the Murray County Area,
has been approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and Georgia
commits to continuing operation of this monitor and to consulting with
the EPA prior to making any changes to it. The State also acknowledges
the obligation to meet monitoring requirements in compliance with 40
CFR part 58.\24\ EPA proposes to find that there is an adequate ambient
air quality monitoring network in the Murray County Area to verify
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Georgia's October 20, 2021, SIP submittal (available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking) at page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or to promptly remedy any
NAAQS violations that might occur during the maintenance period.
    The Murray County Area LMP contingency plan includes tracking and
triggering mechanisms to determine when control measures are needed,
and a process for developing and adopting appropriate control measures.
There are two potential triggers for the contingency plan. The Tier I
trigger will be any 8-hour ozone monitoring reading exceeding 84 ppb at
the Fort Moutain ambient monitoring station located in the Murray
County Area or periodic emissions inventory updates \25\ that reveal
excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in either
NOX or VOC emissions over the attainment inventory for the
Murray County Area. The Tier II trigger will be any recorded violation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the Fort Mountain ambient monitoring
station in

the Murray County Area. Upon either the Tier I or Tier II triggers
being activated, Georgia EPD will commence analyses to determine what
additional measures, if any, will be necessary to attain or maintain
the ozone standard. If activation of either trigger occurs, the plan
provides a regulatory adoption process for revising emission control
strategies. If Georgia's analysis determines that the Murray County
Area is the source of emissions that contribute to a violation, the
State will evaluate those measures as specified in section 172 of the
CAA for control options as well as other available measures. Georgia
will implement necessary controls as expeditiously as possible, and at
least one contingency measure will be implemented within 24 months
after the determination, based on quality-assured ambient data, that a
violation has occurred. The Georgia EPD will begin initial analysis of
possible contingency measures within 6 months of the trigger
occurring.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) requires state and
local agencies to collect and submit criteria pollutant emissions
data to EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) according to the
schedule in 40 CFR 51.30.
    \26\ See the Contingency Plan Section of the LMP for further
information regarding the contingency plan, including measures that
Georgia will consider for adoption if any of the triggers are
activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in Georgia's
second maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meet the
requirements of CAA section 175A(d).

E. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the Murray County Area LMP for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS includes an approvable update of various elements of
the initial EPA-approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA also proposes to find that the Murray County Area qualifies
for the LMP option and adequately demonstrates maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through the documentation of monitoring data showing
maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the NAAQS and historically
stable design values. EPA believes the Murray County Area LMP, which
retains existing control measures in the SIP, is sufficient to provide
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Murray County
Area over the second maintenance period (i.e., through 2027) and
thereby satisfies the requirements for such a plan under CAA section
175A(b). EPA is therefore proposing to approve Georgia's October 20,
2021, submission of the Murray County Area LMP as a revision to the
Georgia SIP.

V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(MTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent
with the motor vehicles emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the
control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124. A MVEB is defined as ``the portion of the total
allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control
strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain
date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones
or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions.'' See 40 CFR 93.101.
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). On October
16, 2007, EPA made a finding that the MVEBs for the first 10 years of
the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray County 1997 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS Area were adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. In a Federal Register notice dated August 29, 2007, EPA
notified the public of that status of that finding. See 72 FR 49679.
This adequacy determination became effective on November 15, 2007.
After approval of this LMP or an adequacy finding for this LMP, there
is no requirement to meet the budget test pursuant to the
transportation conformity rule for the Murray County Area. All actions
that would require a transportation conformity determination for the
Murray County Area under EPA's transportation conformity rule
provisions are considered to have already satisfied the regional
emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as
a result of EPA's adequacy finding for this LMP. See 69 FR 40004 (July
1, 2004).
    According to 40 CFR 93.101, isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas are areas that do not contain or are not part of any
metropolitan planning area as designated under the transportation
planning regulations. Isolated rural areas do not have Federally
required MTPs or TIPs and do not have projects that are part of the
emissions analysis of any metropolitan planning organizations' MTP or
TIP. Projects in such areas are instead included in the statewide
transportation improvement program. Murray County is considered an
isolated rural area. Transportation conformity is done in isolated
rural areas only when non-exempt Federal Highway/Federal Transit
projects need funding or approval. Specifically, these areas must
demonstrate they have met the consultation requirements according to 40
CFR 93.112; use the latest planning assumptions per 40 CFR 93.110 as it
relates to information about Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in
an approved SIP, as well as ensure the timely implementation of the
TCMs according to 40 CFR 93.113.

VI. Proposed Action

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the Murray County Area LMP for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by Georgia EPD on October 20,
2021, as a revision to the Georgia SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
Murray County Area LMP because it includes an acceptable update of
various elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
approved by EPA for the first 10-year period and retains the relevant
provisions of the SIP.
    EPA also finds that the Murray County Area qualifies for the LMP
option and that the Murray County Area LMP adequately demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through documentation of
monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the
NAAQS and continuation of existing control measures. EPA believes the
Murray County Area's 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMP to be sufficient to provide
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Murray County
Area over the second 10-year maintenance period, through 2027, and
thereby satisfy the requirements for such a plan under CAA section
175A(b).

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. See 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. This action merely
proposes to

approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-27866 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48248-48249]
[DOCID:fr22se09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 606-027-CA]

Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Scoping
Meetings and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments

September 15, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 606-027.
    c. Date Filed: March 13, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Old Cow Creek and South Cow Creek in Shasta County,
California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal S. Livingston, Vice-President of
Power Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000,
MC-N11E, San Francisco, CA 94177-0001. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: CarLisa Linton-Peters,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: October 16, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-606) on any comments filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper filings. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing'' link. For a simpler method of
submitting text only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
license for the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project. In addition,
the applicant proposes to decommission and remove project facilities,
as described in its proposed decommissioning plan. In general, (1)
Diversion dams would be removed to stop water diversions and to allow
for free passage of fish and sediment; (2) some diversion dam abutments
and foundations would be left in place to protect stream banks and
provide grade control; (3) powerhouse structures would be secured and
left in place during decommissioning and an option for future reuse of
the powerhouse structures for non-generation purposes would be
preserved; (4) electric generators, turbines and other equipment would
be removed; (5) forebays would be graded and filled; and (6) canal
segments would be left in place, breached, or filled in consultation
with affected landowners, and metal and wood flume structures would be
removed. The applicant consulted with federal, state, local agencies,
and other parties with potential interest, during the license surrender
application process.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.govdocs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via electronic mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For technical
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Mailing list: Individuals desiring to be included on the
Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the
Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Scoping Process: The Commission intends to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed action in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-
specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one evening public meeting and one agency
scoping meeting, which is also open to the public. The agency scoping
meeting will primarily focus on resource agency and non-governmental
organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping meeting will
primarily focus on receiving public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
scoping meetings, and to assist FERC staff in identifying the scope of
the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA on the
proposed action. There will also be a public environmental site review
to the Kilarc-Cow Creek project site (see below). The times and
locations of these two scoping meetings are as follows:

Public Scoping Meeting

    Date: Monday, October 19, 2009.
    Time: 6 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.
    Place: Millville Grange.
    Address: 22037 Old 44 Drive, Palo Cedro, CA 96073.
    Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Agency Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. until 12 Noon.
    Place: Holiday Inn.
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Drive, Redding, CA 96002.
    Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At the scoping meetings, the public will meet the FERC staff and
then the staff will: (1) Summarize the environmental issues tentatively
identified for analysis in the EA; (2) solicit from the meeting
participants all available information, especially quantifiable data,
on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and
the public on issues that should be analyzed in the EA, including
viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary
views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EA; and
(5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as
those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a two-day public
environmental site review. All interested individuals, organizations
and agencies are invited to attend the site review, which begins on
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. All participants
wishing to tour the Kilarc project features should meet at the Whitmore
Community Center, across from the Whitmore General Store, at 30555
Whitmore Road, Whitmore, CA. 96096. All participants are responsible
for their own transportation to the site. Four-wheel drive
transportation is strongly recommended to see the site, and car-pooling
is encouraged. Participants should understand that parking for the site
review is limited and available on a first come first serve basis;
therefore FERC is requesting RSVPs for those planning to attend by
October 13, 2009 to CarLisa M Linton-Peters at<PHONE_NUMBER>. All
participants are asked to bring a brown-bag lunch, sufficient drink
water, and wear appropriate clothing and shoes for the site visit.
Participants should realize that there will be moderate hiking required
and there is no access to restroom facilities for most of the tour.
Participants will also be asked to sign a Release from Liability form
prior to beginning the site tour. The second day of the environmental
site review, to tour the Cow Creek project features, will occur on
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 starting at 9 a.m. All participants joining
us for the second day should meet at the Palo Cedro Park and Ride,
across from the Holiday Market, on the corner of Deschutes Road and 44,
in Palo Cedro, CA. 96073. A tentative itinerary of the two-day
environmental site review is provided below. Anyone with questions
about details of the site review should contact Lisa Whitman of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Tentative Environmental Site Review Itinerary

Kilarc Creek Tour, Tuesday, October 20th 2009. 09:00 to 16:30.

    09:00 Meet at the Whitmore Community Center, across from the
Whitmore General Store. Provide instruction on tour and tour
participations requirements (i.e. no smoking, will stay as a group,
some hiking required/optional, and respect private lands). Public
participants park their vehicles and load into PG&E vehicles. (If the
public participants only want to visit the Kilarc Forebay, they may
drive their own cars and park in the recreation area).
    09:30 Drive to Kilarc Powerhouse. Due to safety rules and the use
of Flame Resistant (FR) clothing in powerhouses and switchyards,
members of the public will be able to view the powerhouse from the
outside only and view the immediate area.
    10:15 Drive to Kilarc Forebay--Proceed on Miller Mountain Road to
Kilarc Forebay and tour the immediate area. Participants may walk a
portion of the lower canal.
    11:30 Option to proceed via Miller Mountain Road and Access Road
``A'' to Kilarc Diversion Dam. Participants may walk 1,500 yards to
view a section of the upper canals, flume sections and the siphon.
    13:00 Option to drive to North and South Canyon Creek Diversions.
    16:30 Secure for day.

Cow Creek Tour, Wednesday, October 21st 2009. 09:00-16:30.

    09:00 Meet at the Park and Ride across from the Holiday Market
(Palo Cedro). Provide instruction on tour and tour participations
requirements (i.e. no smoking, will stay as a group, some hiking
required/optional, and respect private lands). Public participants park
their vehicles and load into PG&E vehicles.
    09:30 Drive to Abbott Ditch Diversion. Inspect the Abbott Ditch
diversion and lower portion of Hooten Gulch.
    10:00 Drive to Cow Creek Powerhouse. Due to safety rules and the
use of FR clothing in powerhouses and switchyards, members of the
public will be able to view the powerhouse from the outside only and
inspect the immediate area including the upper portion of Hooten Gulch.
    11:30 Proceed to Cow Creek Diversion Dam. Park vehicles, and walk
approximately 400 yards to the diversion dam and the fish ladder and
the upper section of the Cow Creek Canal. Walk 300 yards to the Mill
Creek Diversion.
    13:00 Proceed to Cow Creek Forebay, by South Cow Creek Road. For
participants who do not want to see the Cow Creek Forebay, they would
be driven back to their vehicles. The tour would go across the wet
crossing of South Cow Creek to Access Road A and to Cow Creek Forebay.
The group would tour the immediate area of the Forebay and then return
via Access Road A and South Cow Creek Road back to the Palo Cedro Park
and Ride.
    16:30 Secure for Day.

    Note:  For both days of the environmental site review, all
participants are asked to bring a brown bag lunch and water bottles.

Scoping Document

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list on September 15, 2009. Copies of the SD will
also be available at the scoping meetings or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link.

Procedures

    The scoping meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will
become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on this
project.
    Individuals, organizations and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and the
site visit and to assist the FERC staff in defining and clarifying the
issues to be addressed in the EA.
    If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the
environmental coordinator at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
CarLisa Linton-Peters at<PHONE_NUMBER> or carlisa.linton-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22717 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75550-75553]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2012-1020]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; 2013 Orange Bowl Paddle Championship,
Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River in Miami, FL during the
2013 Orange Bowl Paddle Championship. The event will take place on
January 13, 2013 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Approximately
300 kayaks and paddleboards will participate in the event. The special
local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of the participants,
participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Non-
participant vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on January 13,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-1020. 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Mike H. Wu, Sector Miami
Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary event information in regards to the event location until
November 20, 2012. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would
be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed
to minimize potential danger to the race participants, participant
vessels, spectators and the general public.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations pursuant to: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The
purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the 2013 Orange Bowl Paddle Championship.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On January 13, 2013, the Orange Bowl Committee is sponsoring the
2013 Orange Bowl Paddle Championship. The event will be held on the
waters of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. Approximately 300
participants on paddle boards will be transiting the Miami River and
surrounding areas requiring a controlled environment due to large
commercial traffic.
    The special local regulation will encompass certain waters of
Biscayne Bay and the Miami River in Miami, Florida. The special local
regulation will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. on January
13, 2013. The regulated area will encompass all waters west of the
Intracoastal Waterway from just south of the Port Miami Bridge to just
north of the Rickenbacker Causeway Bridge, to include the Miami River
up until the Interstate 95 Bridge. Non-participant persons and vessels
are prohibited from entering, transiting though, anchoring in, or
remaining within this regulated area.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting
the Captain of the Port Miami via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area
is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the
special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced
for a maximum of 4 hours; (2) non-participant persons and vessels may
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area if
authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative; (3) non-participant persons and vessels not authorized
by the Captain of the Port Miami or designated representative to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area may operate
in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; and (4) the
Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local
regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Biscayne
Bay and the Miami River encompassed within the special local regulation
from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. on January 13, 2013. For the reasons
discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

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 will not call for a 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
INTFORMATION 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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 a special local regulation issued in
conjunction with a marine event. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(h) and 35(b) 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 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35T07-1020 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-1020  Special Local Regulations; 2013 Orange Bowl
Paddle Championship, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is established as
a special local regulation: all waters starting at point 1 in position
25[deg]46'45'' N 80[deg]10'57'' W; thence northwest to point 2 in
position 25[deg]46'48'' N 80[deg]11'05'' W; thence southeast to point 3
in position 25[deg]46'46'' N 80[deg]11'10'' W; thence southeast to
point 4 in position 25[deg]46'40'' N 80[deg]11'10'' W; thence southeast
to point 5 in position 25[deg]46'38'' N 80[deg]11'05'' W; thence
northeast to point 6 in position 25[deg]46'45'' N 80[deg]11'01'' W;
thence southeast to point 7 in position 25[deg]46'44'' N 80[deg]10'59''
W; thence southwest to point 8 in position 25[deg]46'31'' N
80[deg]11'06'' W; thence south to point 9 in position 25[deg]46'18'' N
80[deg]11'06'' W; thence westward including all waters of the Miami
River to point 10 in position 25[deg]46'13'' N 80[deg]11'57'' W; thence
eastward including all waters of the Miami River to point 11 in
position 25[deg]46'11'' N 80[deg]11'16'' W; thence southwest to point
12 in position 25[deg]45'28'' N 80[deg]11'20'' W; thence southwest to
point 13 in position 25[deg]44'54'' N 80[deg]12'06'' W; thence
southeast to point 14 in position 25[deg]44'48'' N 80[deg]11'22'' W;
thence northeast to point 15 in position 25[deg]46'09'' N
80[deg]10'57'' W; thence northwest to point 16 in position
25[deg]46'22'' N 80[deg]11'01'' W; thence north to point 17 in position
25[deg]46'36'' N 80[deg]11'01'' W; thence northeast back to origin.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and

other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state and
local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami
in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. until
1 p.m. on January 13, 2013.

    Dated: December 6, 2012.
C.P. Scraba,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2012-30768 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23306-23307]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0230]

Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide
Imaging Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance entitled ``Technical Performance
Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices.'' This
guidance provides industry and Agency staff with recommendations
regarding the technical performance assessment data for the evaluation
of a digital whole slide imaging (WSI) system. The guidance provides
suggestions on how to best characterize the technical aspects that are
relevant to WSI performance for their intended use and determine any
possible limitations that might affect their safety and effectiveness.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-0230 for ``Technical Performance Assessment of Digital
Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food
and Drug Administration Staff.'' Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any

information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide
Imaging Devices'' to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and
Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Anderson, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5662, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-4310; or Aldo Badano, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm.
3116, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Recent technological advances in digital microscopy, in particular
the development of whole slide scanning systems, have accelerated the
adoption of digital imaging in pathology, similar to the digital
transformation that radiology departments have experienced over the
last decade. FDA regulates WSI system manufacturers to help ensure that
the images produced for intended clinical uses are safe and effective
for such purposes. Essential to the regulation of these systems is the
understanding of the technical performance of the WSI system and the
components in the imaging chain--from image acquisition to image
display, and their effect on pathologist's diagnostic performance and
workflow.
    This guidance provides industry and Agency staff with
recommendations regarding the technical performance assessment for
regulatory evaluation of a digital WSI system. This document does not
cover the clinical submission data that may be necessary to support
approval or clearance. The guidance provides suggestions on how to best
characterize the technical aspects that are relevant to WSI performance
for their intended use and determine any possible limitations that
might affect their safety and effectiveness.
    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10122), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance and interested persons
were invited to comment by May 25, 2015.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on technical performance assessment of digital
pathology whole slide imaging devices. It does not establish any rights
for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons
unable to download an electronic copy of ``Technical Performance
Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices'' may send
an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 1400053 to
identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E (premarket
notification) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 (premarket approval)
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 and 21 CFR 809.10
(labeling) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    Dated: April 13, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-09140 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55320-55322]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70320; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-111)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a Time-Limited Waiver of the Monthly Subscription Fee for New and
Existing Subscribers to the Equity Trade Journal for Clearing Firms
Service under Rule 7060

September 4, 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 August 28, 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 and II
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 is proposing to amend the fees assessed under Rule 7060.
NASDAQ will offer the fee waiver to new subscriptions for the month of
September 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
7060. Equity Trade Journal for Clearing Firms
    The Equity Trade Journal for Clearing Firms service is accessed via
NasdaqTrader.com and provides member clearing firms with daily and ad
hoc reports of correspondent trading activity associated with the
subscribing member firm's clearing number. Equity

Trade Journal for Clearing Firms is offered [at no cost beginning
November 15, 2012, and ] according to the following fee schedule[
beginning January 2, 2013]:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of correspondent    Monthly
               Tier                           MPIDs               fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1............................  daily reports for 1-10          $750
                                     correspondent MPIDs.
Tier 2............................  daily reports for 11-20        1,000
                                     correspondent MPIDs.
Tier 3............................  daily reports for 21-30        1,250
                                     correspondent MPIDs.
Tier 4............................  daily reports for 31-40        1,500
                                     correspondent MPIDs.
Tier 5............................  daily reports for 41 or        1,750
                                     more correspondent MPIDs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above fees are waived for the month of September 2013 for new
and existing subscribers. Normal fees will apply to all subscribers
beginning October 2013.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to waive subscription fees for the Equity
Trade Journal for Clearing Firms (``ETJ Clearing'') service for all
subscribers to the service during the month of September 2013. ETJ
Clearing provides clearing member firms with daily and ad hoc reports
of correspondent trading activity associated with the subscribing
member firm's clearing number \3\ and which is accessed via
NasdaqTrader.com. NASDAQ offered the service at no cost between
November 15, 2012 to January 2, 2013, and for a fee according to the
tiered fee schedule thereafter. In an effort to promote the service
among member firms that are not subscribers to the service, NASDAQ is
proposing an additional free period available to both new and existing
subscribers for the month of September 2013. NASDAQ is offering the
service at no cost for the month of September 2013 to encourage member
firms that have not yet subscribed to subscribe; however, both new and
existing subscribers will benefit from the free period. Normal fees
will apply to all subscribers, new and existing, thereafter. In
amending the rule text, NASDAQ is deleting references to the expired
free period and timing of the service's launch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Clearing member firms have unique clearing numbers that
their correspondents use to identify the clearing firm associated
with each trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, because 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 that
NASDAQ operates or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The proposed fee waiver
is reasonable because it will result in a reduction of fees during the
month of September 2013 for all subscribers, thereby reducing the fees
that they will ultimately pay for the service this year. The proposed
fee waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange is applying the waiver to all subscribers to the service and,
as a consequence, the fee waiver does not discriminate in any way among
member firms. NASDAQ notes that it is attempting to increase the
subscriber base of the service, which, as discussed below, may benefit
all subscribers. With a larger base of subscribers, the Exchange is
able to allocate the fixed costs of the service among more subscribers,
which in turn allows the Exchange to either delay or limit the
frequency of any increases to the fees assessed for the service in
response to increases in fixed costs. As such, any promotional free
period offered to encourage new subscription to the service also may
benefit existing subscribers. Accordingly, the proposed time-limited
fee waiver is equitable [sic] not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Waiver of the
subscription fee for all subscribers will result in lower fees, which
are generally seen as indicative of the presence of competition.
Moreover, the proposed fee waiver may promote broader subscription to
the service, thus allowing NASDAQ to allocate the fixed costs of the
subscription among a larger pool of subscribers and thereby delay or
reduce the frequency of future fee increases resulting from increases
in fixed costs experienced by NASDAQ. Finally, by providing a service
that allows members to run and store reports on its [sic]
correspondents' trading activity, NASDAQ hopes to promote competition
among other trading centers by providing useful analytical tools to its
member firms.

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,\6\ and paragraph (f)(2) \7\ of Rule 19b-4,
thereunder as it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge. 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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2013-111 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-2013-111.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of
NASDAQ. 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-2013-111, and should be submitted on or before October 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21936 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P