[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72946-72953]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0436; FRL-10401-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta 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), via a letter dated December 17, 2021. The SIP revision includes
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Atlanta, Georgia Area
(hereinafter referred to as the Atlanta Area or Area). The Area
consists of 20 counties in Georgia: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee,
Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton,
Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton
County. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP for the Area because the
LMP provides for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within
the 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 Area federally enforceable as part of the Georgia SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0436 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, 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) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca 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 Atlanta Area LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that
was submitted by Georgia EPD as a revision to the Georgia SIP on
December 17, 2021. On April 15, 2004, the EPA Administrator signed a
final rule announcing designations under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. That
action included the designation of the Atlanta Area as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It was published April 30, 2004 and
became effective June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004).
Subsequently, EPA approved a maintenance plan and redesignated the
Atlanta Area attainment for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR
72040 (December 2, 2013).
    The Area LMP submitted by Georgia EPD on December 17, 2021, is
designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Atlanta
Area through the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance
period beyond redesignation. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP
because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and
175A.
    As a general matter, the Atlanta Area LMP builds upon controls and
contingency provisions to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during
the second 10-year portion of the Area's maintenance period as the
maintenance plan submitted by Georgia EPD for the first 10-year period.

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, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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), 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).\2\ 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 individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened 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 tightened 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. Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the
Atlanta Area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69
FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA designated
areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Fifteen metro Atlanta counties were designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
EPA designated five other metro Atlanta counties as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Barrow, Carroll, Hall,
Spalding, and Walton. These designations became effective on July 20,
2012. In addition, on June 4, 2018, EPA designated areas for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Effective August 3, 2018, seven metro Atlanta
counties were designated as nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS: Bartow,

Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Henry. See 83 FR 25776
(June 4, 2018) and 40 CFR 81.311.
    A state may submit a request that EPA redesignate a nonattainment
area that is attaining a NAAQS, and, if the area has met other required
criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may approve
the area's redesignation to attainment.\3\ One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending 10 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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, beginning with a 1992 memo referred to as the
Calcagni memo.\4\ The Calcagni memo 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
generated during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified
in three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that
the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using
information such as the area's design value \5\ being well below the
standard and the area having a historically stable design value.\6\ EPA
refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined demonstration
as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo, available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/procedures-processing-requests-redesignate-areas-attainment).
    \5\ 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.
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001. 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,\7\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section
175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the
previous guidance memos. See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014)
(approval of the second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971
SO2 maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve the Area's LMP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the State has made a showing,
consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that the Area's ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable, and that it has met the other maintenance plan
requirements. Georgia EPD has submitted the LMP for the Atlanta Area to
fulfill the second maintenance plan requirement in the Act. EPA's
evaluation of the Area's LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
presented below.
    On April 4, 2012, Georgia EPD submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This submittal included a plan to provide for maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta Area through 2024 as a revision
to the Georgia SIP. EPA approved the Atlanta Area Maintenance Plan and
the State's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective January 2, 2014. See 78 FR 72040
(December 2, 2013).
    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit 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. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that
one consequence of 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). See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015). On June 2, 2017, EPA
redesignated 15 counties in metro Atlanta as attainment for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\8\ See 82 FR 25523 (June 2, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 15-county metro Atlanta region identified for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS is comprised of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb,
Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry,
Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale counties in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, because of the revocation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 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, on
December 17, 2021,

Georgia submitted a second maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area that
shows that the Area is expected to remain in attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through January 2, 2034.
    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Area are below
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Georgia EPD chose the LMP option for the
development of the Area's second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance
plan. On December 17, 2021, Georgia EPD submitted the second 10-year
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan to EPA as a revision to the Georgia
SIP.

III. Georgia's SIP Submittal

    Georgia's December 17, 2021, submittal includes the LMP, air
quality data, emissions inventory information, and an appendix. The
submission also includes comments and responses between EPA and Georgia
EPD and documentation of notice, hearing, and public participation
prior to submission of the plan by Georgia EPD on December 17, 2021. It
also includes an explanation that Georgia's LMP submittal for the
remainder of the 20-year maintenance period for the Atlanta Area is in
response to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision overturning aspects of
EPA's Implementation Plan rule. In addition, the LMP went through
interagency consultation to ensure transportation conformity.
    The Atlanta LMP for the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS includes same or
similar emission reduction strategies as the first 10-year Maintenance
Plan, as well as additional emissions reduction measures to provide for
the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through January 2, 2034.
Specifically, the measures upon which the second 10-year LMP for the
Area rely include the following SIP-approved Georgia Rules: 391-3-
1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major Sources; 391-3-
1-.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units; 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions from
Fuel-Burning Equipment; 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small
Fuel-Burning Equipment; 391-3-20--Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program; and 391-3-1-.02(12)--Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) NOX Annual Trading Program. The Area's LMP also
relies on continued implementation of Federal measures (e.g., Onboard
Refueling Vapor Recovery for Light Duty Vehicles; Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings; Automobile Refinishing; National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (the majority of which
are for VOC); Phase II Acid Rain Program for NOX; Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
Requirements (65 FR 6697); Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements (79 FR 23414); and CSAPR).

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

    EPA has reviewed the Area's LMP which is designed to maintain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Area through the end of the 20-year
period beyond redesignation, as required under CAA section 175A(b). The
following is a summary of EPA's interpretation of the section 175A
requirements \9\ and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Calcagni memo, pages 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 Atlanta LMP includes an ozone attainment inventory for the Area
generated from the data EPA made available from the 2014 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) and that Georgia represents as 2014 summer
tons.\10\ Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for 2014
contained in the LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Georgia defines summer tons as the total cumulative
emissions from May through September.
    \11\ The totals represented in the table may be slightly
different than the inventories in the LMP based on rounding
convention.

   Table 1--2014 NOX and VOC Emissions by Sector (Summer Tons) in the
                              Atlanta Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2014
                       Sector                        -------------------
                                                         NOX       VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire................................................         1         4
Nonpoint............................................     3,228    22,991
Nonroad.............................................     6,502     8,478
Onroad..............................................    27,684    13,868
Point...............................................     7,189     2,582
                                                     -------------------
  Total \11\........................................    44,604    47,923
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Emissions Inventory section of the LMP for the Atlanta Area
describes the methods, models, and assumptions used to develop the
attainment inventory. These estimates were derived from emission values
provided by EPA for use in developing maintenance plans for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\12\ For the Atlanta Area, Georgia EPD used the
emissions summaries generated by EPA from the 2014 NEI, version 2
(2014NEIv2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. EPA, ``1997 Ozone NAAQS Air Quality Monitoring and
Modeling Data'' downloaded from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_air_qual_monitoring_and_modeling_data_nov_19_2018_1.xlsx, accessed April 2020.
    \13\ U.S. EPA, ``Air Emissions Modeling, 2014 Version 7.1
Platform,'' is available from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-version-71-platform, accessed April 2020 (note that
the version 7 platform, which included 2028 projections is not
available on EPA's website).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Georgia EPD to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, EPA
proposes to find that the Area's LMP includes a comprehensive,
reasonably accurate inventory of actual ozone precursor emissions in
attainment year 2014, and proposes to conclude that the plan's
inventories are 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 an 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.\14\ These criteria
are evaluated below with regard to the Atlanta Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
    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 (84 parts per
billion or ``ppb'') \15\ or below. EPA has evaluated the 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 Area is 70 ppb, or 83 percent of the level of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, EPA evaluated the quality
assured and certified 2019-2021 monitoring data (which is the most
recent quality assured and certified monitoring data) and determined
that the 2019-2021 design value for the Area is 68 ppb, or 81 percent
of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 71 ppb), 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 prevention of
significant deterioration 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in ppm. To convert ppm
to ppb the decimal is moved three places to the right (i.e., 0.084
ppm is equal to 84 ppb). Georgia EPD provided the values in ppb for
easy reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 presents the design values for each monitor in the Atlanta
Area over the 2009-2021 period.\16\ As shown in Table 2, all sites have
been below the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS since the 2008-2010
design value, and the most current design value for each monitoring
site is below 85 percent of the NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Georgia EPD provided monitoring data for years 2009 through
2020. The values can be found on Page 12 of the submittal. The
monitoring data shows the general downward trend in design values at
the monitoring sites.

                                   Table 2--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppb) at Monitoring Sites in the Atlanta Area for the 2009-2021 Time Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2007-   2008-   2009-   2010-   2011-   2012-   2013-   2014-   2015-   2016-   2017-   2018-   2019-
                   Location                               County             AQS site ID   2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021
                                                                                DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV      DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennesaw.....................................  Cobb.......................   13-067-0003      80      76      78      77      73       I       I       I      67      66      65      62      61
Newnan (Discontinued)........................  Coweta.....................   13-077-0002      77      68      67      66      62      60      62      66      63       D       D       D       D
Dawsonville..................................  Dawson.....................   13-085-0001      73      71      68      67      64      64      64      65      65      65      64      61      60
South DeKalb.................................  DeKalb.....................   13-089-0002      86      79      77      80      75      72      67      71      71      69      69      67      67
Douglasville.................................  Douglas....................   13-097-0004      79      75      74      75      71      67      66      68      69      67      67      64      66
United Avenue................................  Fulton.....................   13-121-0055      86      80      80      83      80      76      73      75      75      73      73      70      68
Gwinnett.....................................  Gwinnett...................   13-135-0002      81      74      75      78      77      72      69      72      71      69      66      66      66
McDonough....................................  Henry......................   13-151-0002      87      79      78      82      80      77      71      74      71      70      69      67      66
Yorkville (Discontinued).....................  Polk.......................   13-223-0003      74      70      71      72      69      64      62      63       D       D       D       D       D
Georgia Station CASTNET......................  Pike.......................   13-231-9991      ND      ND      ND      ND      72      69      66      68      67       I       I       I      61
Conyers......................................  Rockdale...................   13-247-0001      85      78      75      79      77      77      72      74      69      70      68      67      65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I: Indicates that a monitor did not collect a valid three-year design value due to incomplete data.
D: Indicates that a monitor was approved by EPA to discontinue operation in the Georgia ambient air monitoring network plan.
ND: Prior to 2011, CASTNET sites did not provide regulatory ozone data for comparisons to the NAAQS. Starting in 2011, CASTNET sites were upgraded to meet all requirements of 40 CFR part 58
  and provide ozone data for NAAQS comparisons.
The bolded numbers are the design values for the Atlanta Area for the three-year time periods.

    Therefore, the Atlanta 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 Area through the
second 10-year maintenance period and beyond.
2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Atlanta Area has maintained air quality
below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the past twelve design values.
Additionally, the design value data shown within Table 2 of this
document illustrates that ozone levels have been relatively stable over
this timeframe, with an overall downward trend. For example, the data
within Table 2 of this document indicates that the largest, year over
year change in design value presented was 8 ppb for the Atlanta Area,
which occurred between the 2009 design value and 2010 design value at
monitor 13-151-0002 (McDonough), representing approximately a 9 percent
decrease.
    Furthermore, overall trend in design values for the Area between
2009-2021 indicates decreases in the monitored ozone concentrations.
See, e.g., Table 2, of this document. The Atlanta Area monitor that
most frequently measured the highest design value in the area, monitor
13-121-0055 (United Avenue), displayed a decreasing trend over this
period from 86 ppb to 68 ppb, a 21 percent decrease.
    The 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 Atlanta Area will not exceed the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year maintenance period.
3. Projected Emissions
    Although under the LMP option there is no requirement to project
emissions over the maintenance period, Georgia EPD provided VOC and
NOX emissions for 2014 and 2028. The year 2014 was selected
as a baseline for the projection.\17\ Projected emissions data for the
year 2028 were obtained from EPA, and Georgia presented an inventory
that reflects projected NOX and VOC summer tons for the
Area.18 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
    \18\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-2016-version-7-air-emissions-modeling-platforms. EPA's emissions
projections to 2028 were made from the 2011 NEI, as that iteration
of the NEI was the most recently available version when the
projection work was performed. Although this projection does not
correspond exactly with the end of the second ten-year maintenance
period, it provides additional support for EPA's proposed finding
that the Area will maintain the NAAQS due to its low and
historically stable design values. See the Emissions Inventory
section of the LMP for additional information regarding the 2028
projections.
    \19\ Georgia defines summer tons as the total cumulative
emissions from May through September.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions projection shows that between 2014 and 2028, total
VOC emissions are estimated to fall by 27 percent in the Atlanta Area.
The emissions projection trends show that between 2014 and 2028, total
NOX emissions are estimated to fall by 58 percent in the
Atlanta Area. These

projected declining emissions trends further support the proposed
conclusion that it is unlikely that the Areas would violate the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the future. Table 3 presents a summary of projected
emissions for 2028 contained in the maintenance plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The inventory documentation for this platform can be found
here: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform.

Table 3--Projected 2028 NOX and VOC Emissions by Sector (Summer Tons) in
                            the Atlanta Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2028
                       Sector                        -------------------
                                                         NOX       VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire................................................         6        15
Nonpoint............................................     2,554    20,552
Nonroad.............................................     4,131     7,098
Onroad..............................................     7,995     4,982
Point...............................................     4,221     2,156
                                                     -------------------
  Total \21\........................................    18,907    34,803
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The totals represented in the table may be slightly
different than the inventories in the LMP based on rounding
convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that Georgia
EPD operates and maintains in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Georgia
EPD submits an annual ambient air monitoring network plan to EPA after
the plan is made available for public inspection and comment, as
required by 40 CFR 58.10. EPA has reviewed and approved the 2021
Georgia Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan (``2021 Annual Network
Plan''), which includes an ozone network for the Atlanta Area that
meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The letter approving the network plan is in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of the 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 EPD's
monitoring network in the Area has been approved by EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and the State has committed to continue to
maintain a network in accordance with EPA requirements. EPA proposes to
find that Georgia EPD's monitoring network is adequate to verify
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area.

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 Atlanta 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
an ambient monitoring station located in the Atlanta Area or periodic
emissions inventory updates \23\ that reveal excessive or unanticipated
growth greater than 10 percent in either NOX or VOC
emissions over the attainment inventory for the Atlanta Area. The Tier
II trigger will be any recorded violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at any of the ambient monitoring stations in the Atlanta 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 Atlanta 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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.
    \24\ 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 the CAA section 175A(d).

E. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the Atlanta LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS includes an approvable update of the various elements (including
attainment inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and verification
of continued attainment, and contingency provisions) of the initial
EPA-approved Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA also
proposes to find that the Atlanta 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, historically stable design
values, and low probability that the Area will experience a violation
over the second 10-year maintenance period. EPA believes the Atlanta
LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which retains all existing control
measures, is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Area over the second maintenance period (i.e.,
through January 2, 2034), and thereby satisfies the requirements for
such plans under CAA section 175A(b). EPA is therefore proposing to
approve Georgia's December 17, 2021, submission of the Area's LMP for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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
that it establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether
they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a demonstration
that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 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). EPA made
findings that the MVEBs in the first 10-years of the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area were adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. In a Federal Register action published on December
2, 2013, EPA notified the public of the adequacy finding for the
Atlanta Area through a final rule; the adequacy determination for
Atlanta Area became effective on January 2, 2014. See 78 FR 72040.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA approved the MVEBs on December 2, 2013. See 78 FR
72040. The approval was made through a final rule and became
effective on January 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After approval of or an adequacy finding for the LMP, there is no
requirement to meet the ``budget test'' for motor vehicle emissions
pursuant to the transportation conformity rule for the respective
maintenance area. All actions that would require a transportation
conformity determination for the Atlanta 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
the LMP. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004). The Atlanta 2008 and 2015
NAAQS Areas need to continue to meet all applicable requirements of the
transportation conformity regulations, including the need for a
regional emissions analysis and comparison of the results of the
regional emissions analysis to the applicable MVEB for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS MVEBs will be used to
demonstrate conformity for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS until MVEBs for
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS Area are deemed adequate or approved.
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation
projects still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR
93.105) and Transportation Control Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113), as well as meet the hot-
spot requirements for projects (40 CFR 93.116).\26\ Additionally,
conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP
amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance
with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. Finally, in
order for projects to be approved they must come from a currently
conforming RTP and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ A conformity determination that meets other applicable
criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of the section (Sec.
93.109(e)) is still required, including the hot-spot requirements
for projects in CO, PM10, and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Atlanta LMP for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by Georgia EPD on December 17, 2021, as a
revision to the Georgia SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP
because the LMP includes an acceptable update of the various elements
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by EPA for the
first 10-year period (including emissions inventory, assurance of
adequate monitoring and verification of continued attainment, and
contingency provisions), and retains the relevant provisions of the
SIP.
    EPA also finds that the Atlanta Area, a former nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, qualifies for the LMP option and,
therefore, the Area's 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 Area's 1997
8-Hour Ozone LMP to be sufficient to provide for maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the second 10-year maintenance period
(which extends through January 2, 2034), and thereby satisfies 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 information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having significant economic impacts on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandates 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).
    This SIP revision is not proposed 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.

Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-25585 Filed 11-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 19122]
[FR Doc No: E9-9525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Ninth Meeting, RTCA Special Committee 216: Aeronautical System
Security

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 216 meeting Aeronautical
Systems Security.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 216: Aeronautical Systems Security.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 19-21, 2009. May 19, from 12
p.m. to 5 p.m., and May 20-21, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 216 meeting. The agenda will
include:
     Opening Session (Welcome, Introductions and Administrative
Remarks, Agenda Overview).
     Approval of Summary of the Eighth meeting held on March
18-20, 2009, RTCA Paper No. 038-09/SC216-015.
     Subgroup and Action Item Reports.
     EUROCAE WG-72 Report.
     Other Industry Activities Related to Security--Reports and
presentations.
     Subgroup Breakout Sessions.
     Subgroups Report on Breakouts.
     Closing Session (Any Other Business, Establish Agenda,
Date and Place of Next Meeting, Closing Remarks, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-9525 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 52407]
[DOCID:fr09se08-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3289-EM]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3289-EM), dated August 29, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas for which the President declared an emergency on
August 29, 2008:

    Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard,
Cameron, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberia,
Iberville, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lafourche,
Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Sabine,
St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St.
Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion, Vernon, West
Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana Parishes for debris removal
(Category A) under the Public Assistance program (already designated
for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20815 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70442-70443]
[DOCID:fr04de06-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submissions for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extensions:
    Form F-7, OMB Control No. 3235-0383, SEC File No. 270-331.
    Form F-8, OMB Control No. 3235-0378, SEC File No. 270-332.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
these requests for extension of the previously approved collections of
information discussed below.
    Form F-7 (17 CFR 239.37) may be used to register under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) securities offered for
cash upon exercise of rights that are granted to its existing
shareholders of the registrant to purchase or subscribe such
securities. The information collected is intended to ensure that the
information required to be filed by the Commission permits

verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures
the public availability of such information. The information provided
is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon
request. Form F-7 takes approximately 4 hours per response to prepare
and is filed by 5 respondents. We estimate that 25% of 4 hours per
response (one hour) is prepared by the company for a total annual
reporting burden of 5 hours (one hour per response x 5 responses).
    Form F-8 (17 CFR 239.38) may be used to register under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) securities of certain
Canadian issuers to be used in exchange offers or business
combinations. The information collected is intended to ensure that the
information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification
of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information. The information provided is mandatory
and all information is made available to the public upon request. Form
F-8 takes approximately one hour per response to prepare and is filed
by 10 respondents. We estimate that 25% of one hour per response (15
minutes) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden
of 3 hours (15 minutes/60 minutes per response x 10 responses = 2.5
hours rounded to 3 hours).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    November 20, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20427 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 37555-37556]
[DOCID:fr30jn06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2602-007--North Carolina, Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project]

Duke Power Company LLC; Notice of Revised Restricted Service List
for a Memorandum of Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or
Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

June 23, 2006.
    On May 12, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for
the preparation of a memorandum of agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places at the Dillsboro Hydroelectric Project No. 2602. Rule
2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
2010(d)(1) (2005), provides for the establishment of such a list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding to eliminate unnecessary
expense or improve administrative efficiency. Under Rule 2010(d)(4),
persons on the official service list are to be given notice of any
proposal to establish a restricted service list and an opportunity to
show why they should also be included on the restricted service list or
why a restricted service list should not be established.
    On May 30, 2006, Jackson County, North Carolina; Macon County,
North Carolina; the Town of Franklin, North Carolina; the Friends of
Lake Glenville Association, Inc.; and the Dillsboro Inn and TJ Walker
(jointly) filed a joint response to the notice, requesting that: (1)
They be included in the development of the memorandum of agreement; (2)
the Commission not establish a restricted service list; and (3) the
Commission establish a protocol to protect cultural resource
information during the development of the memorandum of agreement.
    Under Rule 2010(d)(2), any restricted service list will contain the
names of each person on the official service list, or the person's
representative, who, in the judgment of the decisional authority
establishing the list, is an active participant with respect to the
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. The
joint filers have identified an interest in issues relating to the
management of historic properties at the Dillsboro Project. Therefore,
they and their representatives will be added to the restrictive service
list.

    The joint filers assert that they have a direct interest in
ensuring that the decision-making process is open for public review.
Apart from this, they have not identified a reason why a restrictive
service list should not be established. A restricted service list
facilitates consultation under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act by ensuring that only those parties who are actively
participating in this phase of the proceeding are included, thus
improving administrative efficiency and eliminating unnecessary
expense. However, the establishment of a restricted service list does
not restrict public access to information concerning the consultation.
All filings and correspondence leading to the development of a
memorandum of agreement, as well as the agreement itself, will be
placed in the docket for this proceeding and, thus, will be publicly
available. In addition, Commission regulations provide procedures for
protecting sensitive cultural resource information, such as the
location of historic properties, and parties to the restricted service
list must follow these procedures. Therefore, there is no need to
establish protocols for the protection of this information. See 18 CFR
388.112.
    Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on May 12, 2006,
for the Dillsboro Project No. 2602 is revised to add the following
persons:

Thomas J. Walker, Dillsboro Inn, 146 North River Road, P.O. Box 270,
Dillsboro, NC 28725.
Joe Collins, Mayor, Town of Franklin, 188 W Main St, Franklin, NC
28734-2949.
Philip M. Marston, Marston Law, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 300,
Alexandria, VA 22314.
Carol Adams, President, Friends of Lake Glenville, P.O. Box 493,
Glenville, NC 28736-0493.
Paul V. Nolan, 5515 17th Street North, Arlington, VA 22205-2722.
Kenneth L. Westmoreland, Manager, Jackson County Government, 401
Grindstaff Cove Rd, Sylva, NC 28779-3250.
Sam Greenwood, Manager, Macon County, County Manager Office, 5 West
Main Street, Franklin, NC 28734-3005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10301 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40739-40741]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14714]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78090; File No. SR-C2-2016-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To
Amend the Fees Schedule

June 16, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 10, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 these 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 aspects 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 proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to
the Linkage Routing fee.\3\ By way of background, the Linkage Routing
fee is assessed to all orders routed pursuant to the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The Linkage Routing fee is
currently $0.70 per contract plus applicable Taker fees. The Exchange
proposes to waive the Linkage Routing fee and Taker fees for orders
that are routed to another Exchange if entered on (i) a prior business
day or (ii) prior to 8:30 a.m. CST on the same business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on June
1, 2016 (SR-C2-2016-006). On June 10, 2016, the Exchange withdrew
that filing and replaced it with SR-C2-2016-008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that trades on the open involve the matching of
pre-opening orders and quotes and orders resting in the book from the
prior business day and therefore, in effect, no Maker or Taker activity
is occurring. As such, the Exchange currently waives the fees for
trades on the open. The Exchange would similarly like to waive the
Linkage Routing fee and applicable Taker fees for (i) pre-opening
orders that are submitted by 8:30 a.m. CST and (ii) for orders resting
in the book from a prior business day that link away to another
Exchange. The Exchange notes that pre-opening orders submitted by 8:30
a.m. CST and orders resting in the book from a prior business day may
potentially be linked away after being exposed during the opening
process pursuant to C2 Rule 6.11.\4\ The Exchange notes that it does
not wish to assess Linkage or transaction fees for these orders
however, as no Maker or Taker activity is occurring. Additionally, the
Exchange notes that

while a sender of an order intraday would likely know upon submission
whether that order could potentially link away that day based on the
National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO) and resting simple orders and
quotes, a sender of an order could not know at the time of submission
whether that order would link away after an opening rotation on the
following trade date (or if entered the same business day prior to 8:30
a.m. CST, whether it would link away after being exposed during the
upcoming opening). The Exchange therefore does not wish to assess
Linkage or Taker fees for these orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See C2 Rule 6.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,7 which requires that Exchange rules provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable
because market participants won't be assessed Linkage Routing or Taker
fees for orders that are routed to another Exchange if entered on a
prior business day or prior to 8:30 a.m. CST on the same business day.
The Exchange also believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not assess linkage or transaction fees for these
transactions because no Maker or Taker activity is occurring in these
instances and because market participants cannot anticipate upon
submission whether their order would be linked away after exposure
during an opening process, which would result in that market
participant being assessed Taker fees (and in some instances, when they
may otherwise have expected to be treated as a Maker). The Exchange
also wishes to avoid discouraging Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
from canceling resting orders at the end of the day and from sending
pre-opening orders (so as to avoid possible linkage and Taker fees if
linked away after an opening rotation). Finally, the Exchange believes
the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies to all market participants.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change applies to all
TPHs and because the Exchange does not wish to assess fees on orders
that a TPH cannot anticipate being linked away and unexpectedly incur
Linkage and Taker fees. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impose any burden on intermarket competition because it
only effects trading on C2. Should the proposed change make C2 a more
attractive trading venue for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants may elect to become market participants at C2.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market, comprised of fourteen options exchanges, in which
market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebates to be inadequate.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2016-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2016-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments

received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2016-008 and should be
submitted on or before July 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14714 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	September 17, 2009

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document (TSD) for Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking – Determination of Clean Data for the 1997 Fine Particulate
Matter Standard

FROM:	Marilyn Powers, Environmental Engineer

Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez

		Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch

A.  BACKGROUND

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based PM2.5
NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a twenty-four hour
standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations.  EPA established the standards based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate
matter.  The process for designating areas following promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.  EPA
and State air quality agencies initiated monitoring for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in 1999.  On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air
quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years
2001-2003.  These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.  The
Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment area (Berkeley County, WV and
Washington County, MD), the Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment area
(Wood County, WV, Washington County, OH, and the Grant Tax District of
Pleasants County, WV), and the Wheeling nonattainment area (Marshall
County, WV, Ohio County, WV, and Belmont County, OH) were designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR Part 81).

On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38154), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) to determine that each of the West Virginia portions of
these three nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has clean data for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  These West Virginia portions are: Berkeley County,
part of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV nonattainment area; Wood County
and the Grant Tax District in Pleasants County, part of the
Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH nonattainment area; and Marshall County and
Ohio County, part of the Wheeling WV-OH nonattainment area, hereinafter
referred to in this notice as the West Virginia portions of the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, Parkersburg-Marietta, and Wheeling PM2.5
nonattainment areas.  This proposed determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
that show that each of these areas has monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006 - 2008 data.  On August 27, 2009 (74 FR
43653), EPA published a correction to the NPR which corrected the
description of the Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment area to include
the Grant Tax District of Pleasants County, which had been inadvertently
omitted.

On August 31, 2009, EarthJustice submitted comments on both the July 31,
2009 rulemaking for West Virginia and a similar rulemaking (74 FR 38161)
for nonattainment areas in Maryland that was published on the same date.
 EarthJustice requested that the 2009 data referred to in the notice be
placed in the docket and that the comment period be reopened to enable
the public to comment on whether the 2009 data supports EPA’s
determination that these areas have clean data.  This TSD contains the
information requested by EarthJustice and clarifies the 2006-2008 data
that EPA relied upon to support its determination that each of these
areas has clean data.  This TSD only addresses the data that pertains to
the July 31, 2009 rulemaking for the West Virginia portions of the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, Parkersburg-Marietta, and Wheeling PM2.5
nonattainment areas.

B.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

A nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is determined to have
clean data when the design values for the annual and the 24-hour
standards meet the requirements stipulated in 40 CFR Part 50, section
50.7 as follows:

(1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the
annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3;

(2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the
98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3.

Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for
the PM2.5NAAQS has attained the standard, 40 CFR section 51.1004(c)
provides that the requirements for such area to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5NAAQS shall be suspended
until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time
the requirements no longer apply, or if EPA determines that the area has
violated the PM2.5  NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to
submit such plans.

C.  EPA’S ANALYSIS OF MONITORED DATA

1.  2006 – 2008 data

EPA’s determination that the Hagerstown-Martinsburg,
Parkersburg-Marietta, and Wheeling nonattainment areas have clean data
is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data for the 2006 – 2008 period, as measured by Federal
reference method (FRM), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or Approved
Regional Method (ARM) monitors described in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N.
The monitored data show that these areas have annual design values that
are less than 15.0 µg/m3 and 24-hour design values that are less than
65 µg/m3.

a.  The annual design values for these areas are calculated as the
3-year average of the annual mean concentration as shown in the
following three tables, using the rounding convention described in 40
CFR Part 50, Appendix N, section 4.3(a).  All values in the tables are
in µg/m3.

Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV

 	Site ID	2006 annual mean	2007 annual mean	2008 annual mean	3-year
Average	Annual design value

Washington County, MD	240430009	11.888953	12.868648	11.832957	12.196852
12.2

Berkeley County, WV	540030003	14.933678	15.612241	14.187966	14.911295
14.9

Parkersburg-Marietta WV

 	Site ID	2006 annual mean	2007 annual mean	2008 annual mean	3-year
Average	Annual design value

Wood County, WV	541071002	14.684559	15.254055	13.842023	14.593546	14.6

Wheeling WV

 	Site ID	2006 annual mean	2007 annual mean	2008 annual mean	3-year
Average	Annual design value

Marshall County, WV	540511002	14.478495	14.994758	13.082234	14.185162
14.2

Ohio County, WV	540690010	13.130632	15.200649	12.8056	13.712294	13.7

b. The 24-hour design values for these areas are calculated as the
3-year average of the 98th percentile concentration as shown in the
following three tables, using the rounding convention in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix N, section 4.3(b).  All values in the tables are in µg/m3.

Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV

	Site ID	2006 98th percentile concentration	2007 98th percentile
concentration 	2008 98th percentile concentration 	3-year Average
24-hour Design Value

Washington County, MD	240430009	29.8	29.0	29.7	29.5	30

Berkeley County, WV	540030003	31.4	31.4	30.8	31.2	31

Parkersburg-Marietta WV

	Site ID	2006 98th percentile concentration	2007 98th percentile
concentration 	2008 98th percentile concentration 	3-year Average
24-hour Design Value

Wood County, WV	541071002	35.1	38.8	28.2	34.0	34

Wheeling WV

	Site ID	2006 98th percentile concentration	2007 98th percentile
concentration 	2008 98th percentile concentration 	3-year Average
24-hour Design Value

Marshall County, WV	540511002	34.7	37.9	29.1	33.9	34

Ohio County, WV	540690010	27.5	37.2	27.2	30.6	31

2.  2009 data

	At the time of EPA’s proposed determination, EPA did not have State
certified air quality data for the entire 2009 calendar year.  The State
certified air quality data for the entire 2009 calendar year will not be
available until well into calendar year 2010, and, therefore, cannot be
used for purposes of design value calculations during calendar year
2009.  Therefore, EPA did not rely upon any 2009 data to support its
proposed determination that the above areas have clean data.  However,
as part of the proposed determination, EPA made reference to a portion
of the 2009 air quality data that was currently available.  EPA
referenced such partial 2009 data because it indicates a continuing
trend that is consistent with EPA’s proposed determination: the air
quality monitors located in the West Virginia portions of the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, Parkersburg-Marietta, and Wheeling 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment areas are continuing to monitor clean data.  The portion
of the 2009 data that was available at the time of EPA’s proposed
determination is provided below for informational purposes and as
requested by EarthJustice.

Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV

Site ID	Site Address	City 	County 	State	First Quarter

2009	Second Quarter 2009

240430009	18530 Roxbury Road	Hagerstown	Washington Co	MD	10.79	9.62

540030003	Martinsburg Ball Field	Martinsburg	Berkely Co	WV	14.02	11.35

Parkersburg-Marietta WV

Site ID	Site Address	City 	County 	State	First Quarter

2009	Second Quarter

2009

541071002	Vienna Neale Elem School	Vienna	Wood Co	WV	11.77	11.50

Wheeling WV

Site ID	Site Address	City 	County 	State	First Quarter

2009	Second Quarter 2009

540690010	Wheeling Warwood Water Plant	Wheeling	Ohio Co	WV	11.74	11.12

540511002	Moundsville Armory 1501 Ninth Street	Morgantown	Marshall Co	WV
12.90	11.62

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

	Based on the above described 2006-2008 quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data, for each of the
following portions of the following nonattainment areas, EPA is making a
determination that such portion has monitored attainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS during calendar years 2006 – 2008 and, therefore, has
clean data: a) the West Virginia portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area; b) the West Virginia portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area; and, c) the West
Virginia portion of the Wheeling 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area.  Any
references to any 2009 data in the July 31, 2009 NPR were made for
purposes of indicating that EPA believes that, for each of the above
described areas, there is a continuing trend indicating that each such
area will continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  Although the 2009
data is provided in this TSD at the request of EarthJustice, this data
was not directly relied upon by EPA to support the above clean data
determinations.

 Design values are the metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to
determine attainment, and are calculated as follows:

(1) The 3-year average of annual means for a single monitoring site or a
group of monitoring sites (referred to as the “annual standard design
value”). If spatial averaging has been approved by EPA for a group of
sites which meet the criteria specified in section 2(b) of this appendix
and section 4.7.5 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, then 3 years of
spatially averaged annual means will be averaged to derive the annual
standard design value for that group of sites (further referred to as
the “spatially averaged annual standard design value ”). Otherwise,
the annual standard design value will represent the 3-year average of
annual means for a single site (further referred to as the “single
site annual standard design value ”).

(2) The 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each monitoring site (referred to as the “24-hour standard
design value”).  (See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N).

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4108-4109]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02310]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-7, SEC File No. 270-523, OMB Control No. 3235-0585

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Investment
Advisers Act rule 206(4)-7 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-7), Compliance procedures
and practices.'' Rule 206(4)-7 requires each investment adviser
registered with the Commission to (i) adopt and implement internal
compliance policies and procedures, (ii) review those policies and
procedures annually, (iii) designate a chief compliance officer, and
(iv) maintain certain compliance records. The rule is designed to
protect investors by fostering better compliance with the securities
laws. The collection of information under rule 206(4)-7 is necessary to
assure that investment advisers maintain comprehensive internal
programs that promote the advisers' compliance with the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940. The information collected under this rule may
also assist Commission staff in

assessing investment advisers' compliance programs.
    This collection of information is mandatory. The Commission's
examination staff review the information collected pursuant to the rule
206(4)-7; it will be accorded the same level of confidentiality
accorded to other responses provided to the Commission in the context
of its examination and oversight program.
    The respondents to this information collection are investment
advisers registered with the Commission. Our latest data indicate that
there were 13,249 advisers registered with the Commission as of October
31, 2018. The Commission has estimated that compliance with rule
206(4)-7 imposes an annual burden of approximately 87 hours per
respondent. Based on this figure, the Commission estimates a total
annual burden of 1,152,663 hours for this collection of information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02310 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P