[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38825-38830]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13510]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0196; FRL 10010-68-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY Area Comprising Cabell and Wayne Counties

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 West Virginia. This revision pertains to the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection's (WVDEP) plan for maintaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for the West Virginia Portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY area
(Huntington Area), comprising Cabell and Wayne Counties. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0196 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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: Gregory Becoat, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2036. Mr. Becoat can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 10, 2019, WVDEP submitted a
revision to the West Virginia SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through October 16, 2026, in accordance with CAA
section 175A.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its December 10, 2019 submittal, the State consistently
refers to the Huntington Area, rather than referring to the West
Virginia portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY area. While the
State's terminology is technically incorrect, it is clear that what
the State refers to as the Huntington Area is identical to the West
Virginia portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY area designated by
EPA pursuant to the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    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. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\2\ 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. 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.
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
Huntington-Ashland Area, West Virginia-Kentucky (WV-KY) as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS. The Huntington-Ashland
Area, WV-KY nonattainment area consists of Cabell and Wayne Counties,
WV and Boyd County, KY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

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

    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\3\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
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 standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54421, effective October 16, 2006),
EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from WVDEP
for the Huntington Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end
of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided 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).\4\ However, in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \5\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like Cabell
and Wayne Counties) that had been redesignated to attainment for the
1997 NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \5\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and 5) a contingency plan. The Calcagni memo \6\ provides
that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing
air quality modeling to show the future mix of sources and emission
rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at 9. EPA further
clarified in three subsequent guidance memos describing ``limited
maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \7\ that the requirements of CAA section
175A could be met by demonstrating that the area's design value \8\ was
well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the area's
air quality levels showed that the area was unlikely to violate the
NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is below 85%
of the standard, or in this case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA considers
the state to have met the section 175A requirement for a demonstration
that the area will maintain the NAAQS for the requisite period.
Accordingly, on December 10, 2019, WVDEP submitted a second maintenance
plan for the Huntington Area, following EPA's LMP guidance and
demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through
October 16, 2026, i.e., to the end of the 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
    \7\ 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.
    \8\ 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 nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    WVDEP's December 10, 2019 SIP submittal outlines a plan for
continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the
criteria set forth in the Calcagni memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    A state should develop a comprehensive and accurate inventory of
actual emissions for an attainment year which identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The
inventory should be developed consistent with EPA's most recent
guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on typical summer
day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In the
first maintenance plan for the Huntington Area, WVDEP used 2004 for the
attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of the years in the
2002-2004 three-year period when the area first attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The Huntington Area continued to monitor attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the emissions
inventory from 2014 represents emissions levels conducive to continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, WVDEP is using 2014
as representing attainment level emissions for its second maintenance
plan. WVDEP used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA's 2014 version 7.0
modeling platform as the basis for the 2014 inventory presented in
Table 1.

                             Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions
                                                 [Tons/day] \9\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Area                                Source category                VOC             NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabell County, WV.............................  Fire............................            0.00             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................             4.6             3.6
                                                Nonroad.........................               2             0.7
                                                Onroad..........................               2             4.7
                                                Point...........................             0.5             0.8
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................             9.2             9.7
                                                                                ===============================
Wayne County, WV..............................  Fire............................             0.3             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................             4.6             3.7
                                                Nonroad.........................             0.5             0.3
                                                Onroad..........................             0.7             1.6
                                                Point...........................             0.6             2.8
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................             6.7             8.5
                                                                                ===============================
Boyd County, KY...............................  Fire............................             0.1             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................             2.1             1.1
                                                Nonroad.........................             0.3             0.3
                                                Onroad..........................             1.5             2.8
                                                Point...........................             2.3             7.6
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................             6.3            11.9
                                                                                ===============================
Huntington-Ashland Area, WV-KY................     Totals.......................            22.3            30.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 emissions inventory was prepared by WVDEP and uploaded
into EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) for inclusion in EPA's
National Emission Inventory (NEI). The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission source categories: stationary (point) sources,
stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile
sources. Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential
to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50
tpy of NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating
permit. Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported
to WVDEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Data in Table 1 of the preamble only includes tons/day. See
Tables 3 and 4 of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal for data in
tons/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fire emissions sector includes emissions from agricultural
burning, prescribed fires, wildfires, and other types of fires. The
nonpoint emissions sector includes emissions from equipment,
operations, and activities that are numerous and in total have
significant emissions. Examples include emissions from commercial and
consumer products, portable fuel containers, home heating, repair and
refinishing operations, and crematories. The non-road emissions sector
includes emissions from engines that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment, such as generators, forklifts, and marine
pleasure craft. The on-road emissions sector includes emissions from
engines used primarily to propel equipment on highways and other roads,
including passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel
trucks. The point source sector includes large industrial operations
that are relatively few in number but have large emissions, such as
kraft mills, electrical generating units, and pharmaceutical factories.
On-road mobile emissions are modelled by WVDEP using EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). WVDEP generates nonroad mobile
source emissions data through the use of EPA's NONROAD2014a model. EPA
reviewed the supporting documentation submitted by WVDEP \10\ and
proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory is acceptable for the
purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section
175A(b).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Appendix C of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal.
    \11\ The daily emissions data for 2014 typical summer day VOC
and NOX emissions in Table 1 were excerpted from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx (``2014 2028 area
emiss by sector'' tab) posted at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/1997-ozonenational-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value,
DV) 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
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this notice, EPA believes that if the most recent DV for the area is
well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), the section 175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided
that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any
control measures already in the SIP, and any Federal measures 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).
    For the purposes of demonstrating a stable or improving air quality
trend, West Virginia used a weighted design value of the most recent
five design values. The five most recent design values available cover
the 2012-2018 ambient air monitoring data. This includes 3-year design
values for 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018.
Data from 2014, 2015, and 2016 was included in three out of five design
values. Table 2 shows the most recent five years of ambient ozone air
quality 3-year design values. These design values are from EPA's Air

Quality System (AQS). The 7th column is the 5-year weighted design
value calculated by West Virginia. This 5-year weighted design value
was calculated by averaging all the 4th Max Ozone values from the years
2012-2018. The 8th column is the 5-year design value average calculated
by EPA. The 5-year design value average is calculated by averaging the
design values for 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-
2018. The 5-year weighted design value calculated by West Virginia is
0.065 ppm and the 5-year design value average calculated by EPA, for
the Huntington area is 0.063 ppm, both of which are below the 0.071 ppm
threshold level and 79% of the NAAQS. Table 2 shows that the most
recent five years of ambient ozone air quality 3-year average DVs for
the Huntington Area continue to be below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
It demonstrates that 8-hour ozone air quality levels are significantly
below the level of the standard.

                                         Table 2--Huntington Area 8-Hour Ozone Design Values in Part Per Million
                                                                          [ppm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                5-Year design
                  Site                    2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018   5-Year weighted   value average     Projected
                                                                                (ppm)           2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington, WV.........................       0.065        0.062        0.064        0.064        0.064            0.065            0.063         0.060
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2023 projections shown in Table 2, EPA used a 2011-based
air quality modeling platform, which includes emissions, meteorology,
and other inputs for 2011 as the base year and emissions for 2023 as
the future analytic year base case. Specifically, the modeling platform
included a variety of data that contained information pertaining to the
modeling domain and simulation period. These include gridded, hourly
emissions estimates and meteorological data, and boundary
concentrations. Separate emissions inventories were prepared for the
2011 base year and the 2023 base case. All other inputs (i.e.
meteorological fields, initial concentrations, and boundary
concentrations) were specified for the 2011 base year model application
and remained unchanged for the future-year model simulations. The 2023
projected DV for the Huntington Area is 0.060 ppm, well below the level
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that that future violations of the NAAQS in this area are
unlikely.

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the
December 10, 2019 submittal, West Virginia committed to maintaining an
appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. West Virginia will continue to conduct ambient ozone air
quality monitoring in the area throughout the term of the maintenance
plan to verify continued attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and to protect any applicable PSD increments. WVDEP states that air
quality measurements will be performed in accordance with appropriate
regulations and guidance documents along with EPA quality assurance
requirements, and monitoring procedures will be determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. WVDEP commits to submitting quality-
assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS and ultimately certified by
the WVDEP. EPA has analyzed the commitments in the plan and determined
that they meet the requirements.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA. WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal outlines its adopted
permanent and Federally enforceable control measures in order to
regulate emission growth. The Huntington Area's control measures
include the permitting regulations and PSD measures, which will remain
in effect through the maintenance plan period. Air permits issued will
incorporate applicable PSD, New Source Performance Standard, and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant requirements.
    WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal included the required
contingency plan, to be implemented in the event of NAAQS violations in
the future. WVDEP has committed to adopting and implementing one or
more of the following control measures within three months after
verification of a monitored ozone standard violation in the Huntington
Area: (1) Extend the applicability of the VOC reasonably available
control technology (RACT) rule to include source categories previously
excluded (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities); (2) revise permitting
requirements establishing more stringent emissions control measures
and/or emissions offsets; (3) implement NOX RACT
requirements if necessary; (4) develop regulations to establish plant-
wide emission caps; (5) implement Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;
(6) establish a program focusing on increasing the public's
understanding of air quality issues and increasing support for actions
to improve the air quality; and (7) initiate voluntary local control
measures (e.g., bicycle/pedestrian measures, engine idling reduction,
partnership with ground freight industry, increase compliance with open
burning restrictions, and school bus engine retrofit program).
    If there is indeed a violation and the DV exceeds the NAAQS, the
contingency plan will be ``triggered,'' based on the following
schedule: (1) Quality assurance procedures must confirm the monitored
violation within 45 days of occurrence; (2) a draft rule would be
developed by the WVDEP for any regulation chosen, (3) WVDEP will

adopt the selected control measure(s) as emergency rule(s) which will
be implemented within six months after adoption and will file the
rule(s) as legislative rule(s) for permanent authorization by the
legislature; and (4) for each voluntary measure selected, the WVDEP
will initiate program development with local governments within the
area by the start of the following ozone season.
    Furthermore, if the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth
in excess of 10% of the 2011 base-year inventory or if a monitored
ozone air quality exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS
violation may be imminent, WVDEP will evaluate existing control
measures to ascertain if additional regulatory revisions are necessary
to maintain the ozone standards.
    EPA finds that West Virginia's contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section 175A. Importantly, while EPA notes
that West Virginia's contingency measures option six (increasing public
understanding) and seven (voluntary local control measures), are not
enforceable measures that standing alone are likely to lead to
reductions in emissions that could promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS, their inclusion among other measures that meet that criterion,
is overall SIP-strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's
proposal to find the LMP is fully approvable.

E. Transportation 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 (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not 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 vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as ``that
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 (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). 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 40 CFR 93.112) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). 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. In addition, for projects to be approved
they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114
and 93.115). The Huntington Area remains under the obligation to meet
the applicable conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal indicates it
meets CAA section 175A and all applicable CAA requirements. EPA is
proposing to approve the LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Huntington Area (comprising Cabell and Wayne Counties), as a revision
to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to West Virginia's
second maintenance plan for Cabell and Wayne Counties, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-13510 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32210-32213]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14557]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81085; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Rule 6.47A, Automated Improvement Mechanism

July 6, 2017.
    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 30, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') auctions.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules
* * * * *
Rule 6.74A. Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'')
    Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 6.74, a Trading Permit
Holder that represents agency orders may electronically execute an
order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against principal
interest or against a solicited order provided it submits the Agency
Order for electronic execution into the AIM auction (``Auction'')
pursuant to this Rule.
    (a) No change.
    (b) Auction Process. Only one Auction may be ongoing at any given
time in a series and Auctions in the same series may not queue or
overlap in any manner. The Auction may not be cancelled and shall
proceed as follows:
    (1) Auction Period and request for Responses (RFRs).
    (A)-(C) No change.
    (D) Each Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant option
class may submit responses to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes).
[Such responses cannot cross the disseminated Exchange quote on the
opposite side of the market.] Responses that cross the opposite side of
the Exchange's disseminated quote that exists at the conclusion of the
Auction will be priced at the Exchange's disseminated quote on the
opposite side of the market.
    (E) Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders resting at
the top of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order may submit
responses to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes) on behalf such
orders. Such responses [cannot cross the disseminated Exchange quote on
the opposite side of the market, and] may not exceed the size of the
booked order being represented. Responses that cross the opposite side
of the Exchange's disseminated quote that exists at the conclusion of
the Auction will be priced at the Exchange's disseminated quote on the
opposite side of the market.
    (F)-(I) No change.
    (2) Conclusion of Auction. The Auction shall conclude at the sooner
of (A) through (F) below with the Agency Order executing pursuant to
paragraph (3) below.
    (A)-(C) No change.
    (D) Reserved[Any time an RFR response matches the Exchange's
disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from the RFR
responses];
    (E)-(F) No change.
    (3) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.09 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 seeks to amend its rules related to Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') auctions. Specifically, the Exchange
seeks to amend Rule 6.74A(b)(2)(D) to allow AIM auctions to continue
for the full auction exposure period (no less than 100 milliseconds and
no more than 1 second) \5\ when an auction response matches the
Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from
the auction response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(C). See also SR-CBOE-2017-029, which
amended Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(C) to allow the Exchange to designate the
auction exposure period to last no less than 100 milliseconds and no
more than 1 second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An AIM auction consists of an Agency Order and a contra-side order.
A Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') may initiate an AIM auction provided
that the Agency Order is in a class and of sufficient size as
determined by the Exchange. An Agency Order must also be stopped at:
(1) The better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the
Agency Order is for 50 standard option contracts or more) or (2) the
better of the NBBO price improved by one minimum price improvement
increment or the Agency Order's limit price (if the Agency Order is for
less than 50 standard option contracts).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 6.74A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, an AIM auction will currently conclude at the sooner
of: The end of the auction period; upon receipt by the Hybrid System of
an unrelated order (in the same series as the Agency Order) that is
marketable against either the Exchange's disseminated quote (when such
quote is the NBBO) or the auction responses; upon receipt by the Hybrid
System of an unrelated limit order (in the same series as the Agency
Order and on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order) that
improves any auction response; any time an auction response matches the
Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from
the auction response; any time there is a quote lock on the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 6.45(c); or any time there is a trading halt in the
series on the Exchange.
    As noted above, AIM auctions end when an auction response matches
the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market
from the auction response.\7\ For example, assume the NBBO and the
Exchange's BBO are 1.00-1.20 when an auction is initiated. If the
Agency Order is an order to buy and an auction response is to sell at
1.00, the auction will end early (i.e., prior to the full duration of
the auction exposure period). An individual auction response may not
exceed the size of the Agency Order.\8\ A response to sell at 1.00 will
end the auction early and necessarily does not have sufficient size to
execute both the Agency Order and all priority customer interest in the
book at 1.00. Thus, with priority customer interest in the book at 1.00
the Agency Order will execute against the auction response at one
minimum auction response increment worse than the final auction price
(1.01 in the above example).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(2)(D).
    \8\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(H).
    \9\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an auction ends early because an auction response matches the
Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from
the auction response, the auction's termination prevents the Exchange
from receiving more auction responses. More auction responses increase
the opportunity that the auction responses, in the aggregate, will have
enough size to allow the Exchange to execute both the Agency Order and
priority customer interest in the book against the auction responses.
In cases where there is sufficient auction response interest to satisfy
both the Agency Order and all priority customer interest in the book,
then the Agency Order receives an execution price that is one minimum
price increment better than would occur without this change (i.e., the
Agency Order in the above example is executed at 1.00 instead of 1.01).
Thus, the Exchange seeks to amend subparagraph (D) of Rule 6.74(b)(2)
to allow an AIM auction to continue for the full duration of the
auction exposure period any time an auction response matches the
Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from
the auction response.
    Furthermore, the Exchange also seeks to amend subparagraphs (D) and
(E) of Rule 6.74A(b)(1) to provide further clarity as to how the
Exchange's systems will function. Subparagraphs (D) and (E) of Rule
6.74A(b)(1) provide that auction responses cannot cross the
disseminated Exchange quote on the opposite side of the market.
Currently, the Exchange does not reject responses that cross the
disseminated Exchange quote on the opposite side of the market but
instead systematically enforces the restriction in subparagraphs (D)
and (E) by treating all responses that cross the disseminated Exchange
quote on the opposite side of the market as a response at the
disseminated price, which, in accordance with subparagraph (D) of Rule
6.74A(b)(2) described above, currently ends the auction early because
such a response is marketable with the Exchange's disseminated quote on
the opposite side of the market from the auction response. Since
auctions will no longer conclude early upon the receipt of a marketable
response, the Exchange seeks to amend subparagraphs (D) and (E) to
specify that responses that cross the opposite side of the Exchange's
disseminated quote that exists at the conclusion of the Auction will be
priced at the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the
market.
    The below examples describe the manner in which the current rule
operates as well as how the proposed rule will operate.
    Example #1 (current rule):
     The disseminated Exchange quote prior to the initiation of
an auction is 1.00-1.20.
     The Agency Order is an order to buy and is stopped at
1.19.
     The Exchange receives an auction response priced at .99 or
lower.
     An auction response priced at .99 or lower when the
Exchange's quote is 1.00-1.20 is marketable against the Exchange's
disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market form the auction
responses. Thus, pursuant to Rule 6.74A(b)(2) the auction is
terminated.
     At the conclusion of the auction the Exchange's market is
1.00-1.20.
     An auction response at .99 or lower is treated as a
response at 1.00, and the Agency Order is allocated in accordance with
Rule 6.74A(b)(3). If the 1.00 bid in the book is a public customer and
there are not enough responses priced at 1.00 to allow the booked
public customer order and the Agency Order to be executed, the Agency
Order is executed at 1.01 pursuant to subparagraph (I) of Rule
6.74A(b)(3).
    Example #2 (proposed rule):
     The disseminated Exchange quote prior to the initiation of
an auction is 1.00-1.20.
     The Agency Order is an order to buy and is stopped at
1.19.
     The Exchange receives an auction response priced at .99 or
lower.
     The Exchange does not end the auction early. The auction
will instead last for the full auction exposure period,

which, again, allows for the possibility of more auction responses. As
described above, more auction responses increases the opportunity that
the auction responses, in the aggregate, will have enough size to allow
the Exchange to execute both the Agency Order and priority customer
interest in the book against the auction responses.
     At the conclusion of the auction the Exchange's market is
1.00-1.20.
     An auction response priced at .99 or lower is treated as a
response at 1.00, and the Agency Order is allocated in accordance with
Rule 6.74A(b)(3). If the 1.00 bid in the book is a public customer and
there are not enough responses priced at 1.00 to allow the booked
public customer order and the Agency Order to be executed, the Agency
Order is executed at 1.01 pursuant to subparagraph (I) of Rule
6.74A(b)(3).
    Example #3 (proposed rule):
     The disseminated Exchange quote prior to the initiation of
an auction is 1.00-1.20.
     The Agency Order is an order to buy and is stopped at
1.19.
     The Exchange's disseminated bid is updated to 1.05 during
the auction so the market is now 1.05-1.20.
     The Exchange receives an auction response priced at 1.04
or lower.
     The Exchange does not end the auction early. The auction
will instead last for the full auction exposure period, which, again,
allows for the possibility of more auction responses. As described
above, more auction responses increases the opportunity that the
auction responses, in the aggregate, will have enough size to allow the
Exchange to execute both the Agency Order and priority customer
interest in the book against the auction responses.
     At the conclusion of the auction the Exchange's market is
1.05-1.20.
     An auction response priced at 1.04 or lower is treated as
a response at 1.05, and the Agency Order is allocated in accordance
with Rule 6.74A(b)(3). If the 1.05 bid in the book is a public customer
and there are not enough responses priced at 1.05 to allow the booked
public customer order and the Agency Order to be executed, the Agency
Order is executed at 1.06 pursuant to subparagraph (I) of Rule
6.74A(b)(3).
    Example #4 (proposed rule):
     The disseminated Exchange quote prior to the initiation of
an auction is 1.00-1.20.
     The Agency Order is an order to buy and is stopped at
1.19.
     The Exchange's disseminated bid is updated to 1.05 during
the auction so the market is now 1.05-1.20.
     The Exchange receives an auction response priced at 1.04.
     The Exchange does not end the auction early. The auction
will instead last for the full auction exposure period, which, again,
allows for the possibility of more auction responses. As described
above, more auction responses increases the opportunity that the
auction responses, in the aggregate, will have enough size to allow the
Exchange to execute both the Agency Order and priority customer
interest in the book against the auction responses.
     The 1.05 bid is cancelled prior to the end of the auction
and the market returns to 1.00-1.20.
     At the conclusion of the auction the Exchange's market is
1.00-1.20.
     At the conclusion of the auction the auction response
priced at 1.04 remains a response at 1.04 because the market is 1.00-
1.20 at the conclusion of the auction (i.e., the response priced at
1.04 does not cross the disseminated quote on the opposite side of the
market from the auction response), and the Agency Order is allocated in
accordance with Rule 6.74A(b)(3).
    The Exchange notes that if the Exchange's systems were designed to
reject the 1.04 in example #4 the Agency Order would not have received
price improvement beyond the stop price of 1.19.
    Allowing an AIM auction to continue for the full duration of the
auction exposure period any time an auction response matches the
Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from
the auction response provides more opportunity for the Exchange to
receive auction responses that satisfy priority interest in the book as
well as the Agency Order. The Exchange is not amending the manner in
which orders are allocated at the conclusion of an AIM auction. Orders
will continue to be allocated in accordance with Rule 6.74A(b)(3). The
Exchange notes that other exchanges with similar auctions allow the
auctions to continue for the full duration when an auction response
matches the disseminated quote on the opposite of the market from the
auction response.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Rule 21.19(b)(2);
Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') Rules, Section 9; Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``Phlx) [sic] Rule 1080(n); and International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``ISE'') Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no
later than 180 days following the effective date.
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.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ 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 the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes allowing an AIM auction to
continue for the full duration of the auction exposure period any time
an auction response matches the Exchange's disseminated quote on the
opposite side of the market from the auction response will provide
increased opportunities for the Agency Order and priority interest in
the book to be executed, which helps to perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and, in general, helps to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange notes that other exchanges with similar
auctions allow the auctions to continue for the full duration when an
auction response matches the disseminated quote on the opposite of the
market from the auction response.\14\ The Exchange also notes that the
proposal helps protect the public interest by treating responses that
cross the opposite side of the Exchange's disseminated quote as
responses priced at the Exchange's disseminated quote because doing so
allows Agency Orders to receive price improvement beyond the stopped
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See EDGX Rule 21.19(b)(2); Nasdaq Rules, Section 9; Phlx
Rule 1080(n); and ISE Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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 proposal simply provides
more opportunity for Agency Orders and priority interest in the book to
be executed in full when an auction response matches the Exchange's
disseminated quote on the opposite of the market from the auction
response. The Exchange notes that another exchange with a similar
auction allows the auction to continue for its full duration when an
auction response matches the disseminated quote on the opposite of the
market from the auction response. The Exchange also notes that the
proposal helps protect the public interest by treating responses that
cross the opposite side of the Exchange's disseminated quote as
responses priced at the Exchange's disseminated quote because doing so
allows Agency Orders to receive price improvement beyond the stopped
price.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2017-054 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-CBOE-2017-054. 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-CBOE-2017-054 and should be
submitted on or before August 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14557 Filed 7-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 68521]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28609]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65468A; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Managed Fund Shares
of TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600;
Correction

November 1, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Order; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On October 11, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission
published an Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change to List
and Trade Managed Fund Shares of TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (``Notice'') in the Federal Register. The
Order, in the second-to-last sentence of the introductory paragraph,
contained the phrase ``[CONFIRM]'' which should have been deleted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristie Diemer, Division of Trading
and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register dated October 11, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-
26135, on page 62874, the second-to-last sentence of the introductory
paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
    ``The Commission received no comments on the proposal.''

Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28609 Filed 11-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30927-30928]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Settlement Agreement

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Project No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water                10482-122
 Resources, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC........
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water                10481-069
 Resources, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC........

Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water                 9690-115
 Resources, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.
    b. Project Nos.: P-10482-122; P-10481-069; and P-9690-115.
    c. Date Filed: May 28, 2021.
    d. Applicants: Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC; Eagle Creek Water
Resources, LLC; and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC (collectively
referred to as Eagle Creek).
    e. Name of Projects: Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (P-
10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-10481), and Rio
Hydroelectric Project (P-9690).
    f. Location: The Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project is located
on the Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek in Sullivan County, New York.
The Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project is located on the Mongaup River
and Black Brook in Sullivan County, New York. The Rio Hydroelectric
Project is located on the Mongaup River in Sullivan and Orange
Counties, New York. The projects do not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jody J. Smet, Vice President Regulatory
Affairs, 2 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1330, Bethesda, MD 20814;
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Nicholas Ettema,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments: Comments are due within 20 days of
the notice. Reply comments due within 30 days of the notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include the docket
number (e.g., P-10482).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. Eagle Creek filed an Offer of Settlement (Settlement Agreement)
on behalf of itself, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service,
U.S.G.S Office of the Delaware River Master, American Whitewater,
Appalachian Mountain Club, Kayak and Canoe Club of New York, Chapin
Estate Homeowners Association, Homeowners of Toronto, Inc., Iroquois
Hunting and Fishing Club, Inc., Swinging Bridge Property Owners
Association, Trout Unlimited--New York State Council, and the Woodstone
Lake Development, LLC. The Settlement Agreement includes protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures addressing project operation,
minimum flows, dissolved oxygen, Delaware River dwarf wedgemussel,
downstream fish passage, upstream passage of American eel, and
management plans for shorelines, recreation, whitewater flows, bald
eagles, northern long-eared bat, invasive plants, and historic
properties. Eagle Creek requests that the measures in the Settlement
Agreement be incorporated as license conditions, without modification,
in any license issued for each project. The signatories to the
Settlement Agreement also request a 50-year license term for each
project.
    l. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for review on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these projects or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12152 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68999-69001]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8307]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from

the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Effective date
                                                           authorization/
          State and location              Community    cancellation of sale of       Current effective map date       Date certain Federal assistance no
                                             No.         flood  insurance in                                              longer available in SFHAs
                                                              community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Region III

West Virginia:
    Hartford, Town of, Mason County...        540247  April 29, 1975, Emerg;    December 3, 2013...................  December 3, 2013.
                                                       February 15, 1978, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Henderson, Town of, Mason County..        540251  May 27, 1975, Emerg; May  ...... do*.........................   Do.
                                                       15, 1978, Reg; December
                                                       3, 2013, Susp.
    Leon, Town of, Mason County.......        540113  July 16, 1975, Emerg;     ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       August 15, 1978, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Mason, Town of, Mason County......        540248  May 21, 1975, Emerg;      ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       February 15, 1978, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Mason County, Unincorporated Areas        540112  April 25, 1975, Emerg;    ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       January 2, 1980, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.

               Region V

Michigan:
    Dearborn Heights, City of, Wayne          260221  January 12, 1973, Emerg;  ...... do..........................   Do.
     County.                                           May 2, 1983, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Huron, Township of, Wayne County..        260545  May 28, 1982, Emerg;      ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       October 17, 1986, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Inkster, City of, Wayne County....        260232  February 23, 1973,        ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       Emerg; March 2, 1979,
                                                       Reg; December 3, 2013,
                                                       Susp.
    Romulus, City of, Wayne County....        260381  N/A, Emerg; May 24,       ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       2012, Reg; December 3,
                                                       2013, Susp.
    Sumpter, Township of, Wayne County        260243  September 3, 1976,        ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       Emerg; May 5, 1981,
                                                       Reg; December 3, 2013,
                                                       Susp.
    Taylor, City of, Wayne County.....        260728  November 25, 1986,        ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       Emerg; November 25,
                                                       1986, Reg; December 3,
                                                       2013, Susp.
    Wayne, City of, Wayne County......        260245  April 3, 1975, Emerg;     ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       August 15, 1980, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
    Westland, City of, Wayne County...        260739  January 22, 1985, Emerg;  ...... do..........................   Do.
                                                       January 22, 1985, Reg;
                                                       December 3, 2013, Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- =Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: October 30, 2013.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-27513 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69490-69491]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3357-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Delaware; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Delaware (FEMA-3357-EM), dated October 29,
2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 29, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Delaware resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 27,
2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the State of Delaware.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that

pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Regis Leo
Phelan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Delaware have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all
counties in the State of Delaware.

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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-28062 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


41988 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules content limits specified by New York for those products. In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228 establish that, beginning January 1, 2001, a person at a facility subject to the MERR provisions of Part 228 must use one or more of the following application techniques to apply MERR or color matching coatings: flow/ curtain coating; dip coating; cotton tipped swab application; electrodeposition coating; high volume, lowpressure spraying; electrostatic spray; airless spray; and other coating application methods approved by the NYSDEC which can achieve emission reductions equivalent to high volume, low pressure spray or electrostatic spray application methods. The proposed revisions to part 228 also include clarifications to definitions; permit requirements; exemptions; VOC emission control requirements; test methods, including capture efficiency test protocols and test methods; equipment cleaning specifications; and recordkeeping requirements.

III. What Is EPA's Conclusion? EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the proposed revisions made to part 228, entitled, `` Surface Coating Processes'' meet the SIP revision requirements of the Act. In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228, `` Surface Coating Processes'' are being processed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed revisions to part 228 are substantially different than those identified in this document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made to part 228 as cited in this document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by New York and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104   4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401   7671q.

Dated: July 1, 2003. Jane M. Kenny, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [ FR Doc. 03   18003 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 136 [ FRL   7527   8]

RIN 2040   AD53 Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Procedures for Detection and Quantitation; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule and Notice of Document Availability; reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule and the notice of document availability ( NODA) regarding EPA's assessment of detection and quantitation procedures. The proposed rule and the NODA were published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2003 ( 68 FR 11770 and 68 FR 11791, respectively), and the comment periods for both were scheduled to end on July 10, 2003. The Agency is reopening the comment periods for 30 days, and they will now end on August 15, 2003. DATES: Comments must be postmarked, delivered by hand, or electronically mailed on or before August 15, 2003. Comments provided electronically will be considered timely if they are submitted by 11: 59 p. m. Eastern Time on August 15, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to Water Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 4101T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460, or electronically through EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/, Attention VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41989 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules Docket No. OW   2003   0002. See Unit C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the March 12, 2003, Federal Register notice for the proposed rule ( 68 FR 11771   11772) and Unit I. B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the March 12, 2003, Federal Register notice for the NODA ( 68 FR 11791   11792) for additional ways to submit comments and more detailed instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Telliard; Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303T); Office of Science and Technology; Office of Water; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460, or call ( 202) 566   1061 or E mail at telliard. william@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background EPA's method detection limit ( MDL) and minimum level of quantitation ( ML) are used to define analytical method ( test) sensitivity under the Clean Water Act ( CWA). In February 2003, EPA's Office of Water completed an assessment of detection and quantitation concepts and their application under CWA programs. On March 12, 2003, EPA published a document ( 68 FR 11791) making available for public comment an assessment document entitled `` Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts'' ( EPA 821   R   03   005, February 2003). On the same date, EPA also published proposed revisions to the current EPA procedure for determining test sensitivity under EPA's CWA programs ( available at 40 CFR part 136, appendix B) ( 68 FR 11770). The proposed revisions include clarifications and improvements based on the assessment of the MDL, ML, and other approaches for defining test sensitivity; peer review of the assessment; and stakeholder comments on the existing MDL procedure. The 120 day public comment periods established for the proposed rule and NODA were scheduled to end July 10, 2003. EPA received a request to extend the public comment for the proposed rule period beyond that due date. In order to give the public enough time to review and comment on the proposed rule, EPA is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to August 15, 2003, for each of those documents. B. Reopening of Comment Period This document reopens the public comment periods established in the Federal Register issued on March 12, 2003 ( 68 FR 11770 and 68 FR 11791). In those documents, EPA requested public comments on the Agency's proposed rule and on the assessment document entitled `` Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts'' ( EPA 821   R   03   005, February, 2003). EPA is hereby reopening the comment periods to August 15, 2003. To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the March 12, 2003 Federal Register actions for the proposed rule ( 68 FR 11771   11772) and the NODA ( 68 FR 11791   11792). If you have questions, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this action.

Dated: July 9, 2003. G. Tracy Mehan, III, Assistant Administrator for Water. [ FR Doc. 03   17875 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0092; FRL   7301   5]

Aldicarb, Atrazine, Cacodylic acid, Carbofuran, et al.; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances for residues of the insecticides aldicarb, carbofuran, diazinon, and dimethoate; herbicides atrazine, metolachlor, and sodium acifluorfen; fungicides fenarimol, propiconazole, and thiophanate methyl; and the defoliant cacodylic acid. EPA determined that there are no reasonable expectations of finite residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs for the aforementioned pesticide active ingredients and that these tolerances are no longer needed. Also, this document proposes to modify specific fenarimol tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) section 408( q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. Because all the tolerances were previously reassessed, no reassessments are counted here toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0092, must be received on or before September 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8037; e mail address: nevola. joseph@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52087]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0502; FRL-9900-30-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5 Permitting Requirements;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on July 25,
2013, disapproving a Wisconsin State Implementation Plan revision
pertaining to permitting requirements relating to particulate matter of
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). An error in the
amendatory instruction is identified and corrected in this action.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a final rule document on July
25, 2013, (78 FR 44881) disapproving revisions to Wisconsin rules NR
400, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408 and 484, submitted by the State on May 12,
2011, because the rule revisions submitted are not consistent with
Federal regulations governing state permitting programs. In this
disapproval EPA erroneously stated that the revision was being made to
40 CFR 52 Subpart P--Indiana, but the language should have said the
revision was being made to Subpart YY--Wisconsin. Therefore, the
amendatory instruction is being corrected to reflect the corrected
subpart reference.

Correction

    In the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 25,
2013, (78 FR 44881), on page 44884, second column, below amendatory
instruction 1, ``Subpart P--Indiana'' is corrected to read: ``Subpart
YY--Wisconsin''.

    Dated: August 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-20416 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P