[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39044-39046]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6395]

Request for Applications for New Members of the Clinical Trials
Transformation Initiative/Food and Drug Administration Patient
Engagement Collaborative

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice; request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency), in
collaboration with the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative
(CTTI), is requesting applications of patient advocates interested in
participating on the Patient Engagement Collaborative (PEC). The PEC is
an ongoing, collaborative forum coordinated through the Office of
Patient Affairs, Office of Clinical Policy and Programs (OCPP), Office
of the Commissioner, and is hosted by CTTI. Through the PEC, the
patient community and regulators are able to discuss an array of topics
regarding increasing meaningful patient engagement in medical product
development and regulatory discussions at FDA. The activities of the
PEC may include, but are not limited to, providing diverse perspectives
on topics such as systematic patient engagement, transparency, and
communication; providing considerations for implementing new strategies
to enhance patient engagement at FDA; and proposing new models of
collaboration in which patients and patient advocates are partners in
non-product specific

aspects of the medical product development and FDA review process.

DATES: Applications submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on August 23,
2021, will be considered for membership in the PEC. Incomplete
applications and applications completed after the above-specified
deadline will not be reviewed.

ADDRESSES: All applications should be submitted to FDA's Office of
Patient Affairs in OCPP. The preferred application method is via the
online submission system provided by CTTI, available at https://duke.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eLDSvmVIXdsAdVP. For those applicants
unable to submit an application electronically, please call FDA's
Office of Patient Affairs at<PHONE_NUMBER> to arrange for mail or
delivery service submission. Only complete applications, as described
under section IV of this document, will be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Slavit, Office of the
Commissioner, Office of Clinical Policy and Programs, Office of Patient
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    The CTTI is a public-private partnership cofounded by FDA and Duke
University whose mission is to develop and drive adoption of practices
that will increase the quality and efficiency of clinical trials. FDA
and CTTI have long involved patients and considered patient
perspectives in their work. Furthering the engagement of patients as
valued partners across the medical product research and development
continuum requires an open forum for patients and regulators to discuss
and exchange ideas.
    The PEC is an ongoing, collaborative forum in which the patient
community and regulators discuss an array of topics regarding
increasing patient engagement in medical product development and
regulatory discussions at FDA. The PEC is a joint endeavor between FDA
and CTTI. The activities of the PEC may inform relevant FDA and CTTI
activities. The PEC is not intended to advise or otherwise direct the
activities of either organization, and membership will not constitute
employment by either organization.
    The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L.
112-14), section 1137, entitled ``Patient Participation in Medical
Product Discussions,'' added section 569C to the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-8c). This provision directs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to ``develop and implement
strategies to solicit the views of patients during the medical product
development process and consider the perspectives of patients during
regulatory discussions.'' On November 4, 2014, FDA issued a Federal
Register notice establishing a docket (FDA-2014-N-1698) for public
commenters to submit information related to FDA's implementation of
this provision. Upon review of the comments received, one common theme,
among others, included establishing an external group to provide input
on patient engagement strategies across FDA's Centers. After
considering the comments, FDA formed the PEC in 2018 to discuss a
variety of patient engagement topics. This group is consistent with
additional legislation subsequently enacted in section 3001 of the 21st
Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) and section 605 of the FDA
Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-52), further supporting tools
for fostering patient participation in the regulatory process.
    The PEC currently has 16 members. To help ensure continuity in its
activities and organizational knowledge, the PEC maintains staggered
membership terms. As of September 2021, eight members will complete a
term and up to eight new members will be selected. The purpose of this
notice is to announce that the application process for up to eight new
members of the PEC is now open, and to invite and encourage
applications by the submission deadline for appropriately qualified
individuals.

II. Criteria for Membership

    The PEC includes up to 16 diverse representatives of the patient
community. Eight members from the previous application process will
remain on the PEC. The current application process is to select up to
eight new PEC members. Selected members will include the following: (1)
Patients who have personal disease experience; (2) caregivers who
support patients, such as a parent, child, partner, other family
member, or friend, and who have personal disease experience through
this caregiver role; and, (3) representatives from patient groups who,
through their role in the patient group, have direct or indirect
disease experience. Please note that for purposes of this activity, the
term ``caregiver'' is not intended to include individuals who are
engaged in caregiving as healthcare professionals; and the term
``patient group'' is used herein to encompass patient advocacy
organizations, disease advocacy organizations, voluntary health
agencies, nonprofit research foundations, and public health
organizations. The ultimate goal of the application and selection
process is to identify individuals who can represent a collective
patient voice for their patient community.
    Selection criteria include the applicant's potential to
meaningfully contribute to the activities of the PEC, ability to
represent and express the patient voice for his or her constituency,
ability to work in a constructive manner with involved stakeholders,
and understanding of the clinical research enterprise. Consideration
will also be given to ensuring the PEC includes diverse perspectives
and experiences, including but not limited to sociodemographic and
disease experience diversity. PEC members are required to be residents
of the United States and must be 18 years of age or older.
    Financial and other conflicts of interest will not necessarily make
applicants ineligible for membership in the PEC. However, applicants
cannot be direct employees of the medical product development industry
or a currently registered lobbyist for an FDA-regulated industry.

III. Responsibilities and Expectations

    Working meetings of the PEC will typically be held two to four
times per year, either in person (in the Washington DC area) or
virtually (teleconference or webinar). Given the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, meetings will be conducted virtually and may resume in-person
when it is safe to do so. Additional meetings may be organized as
needed, and currently include monthly, 1-hour teleconferences.
    Reasonable accommodations will be made for members with special
needs for travel or for participation in a meeting. Applications for
PEC membership are encouraged from individuals of all racial, ethnic,
cultural groups, sexual orientations, gender identities, with and
without disabilities. Travel support will be provided as applicable.
    To help ensure continuity in its activities and organizational
knowledge, the PEC will maintain staggered membership terms for patient
community representatives. Membership terms for new members will be 2-
year appointments. Members may serve up to two terms, with the
possibility of extensions.
    Additional responsibilities and expectations are set forth in the
PEC Framework, which should be reviewed

prior to submitting an application, available at https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/framework-cttifda-patient-engagement-collaborative.

IV. Application Process

    Any interested person may apply for membership on the PEC. To
apply, go to https://duke.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eLDSvmVIXdsAdVP.
The application process is completed online and includes answering
questions to help determine eligibility for the PEC, demographic and
other background questions, and four brief essay questions. Many of the
demographic questions are optional. The brief essay questions, which
must be answered in 500 characters or fewer (including spaces), are as
follows:
     Please explain why you would have an outstanding ability
to represent and express the patient voice for the disease area(s) you
selected above.
     Please give a few examples of experiences that demonstrate
your outstanding ability to work across stakeholders in the medical
product development process.
     Please explain how you have developed a strong
understanding of the medical product development process.
     Please tell us why you are interested in becoming a member
of the PEC and how you would be able to contribute.
    Completing the application form also requires submitting: (1) A
current, complete curriculum vitae or r[eacute]sum[eacute] that shows
relevant activities and experience (PDF format preferred) and (2) a
letter of endorsement (maximum 800 words) from a patient group with
which the applicant has worked closely on activities that are relevant
to the PEC (PDF format preferred). The letter of endorsement should
emphasize information relevant to the criteria for membership described
above. The letter may address topics such as the applicant's
involvement in patient advocacy activities, experiences that stimulated
an interest in participating in discussions about patient engagement in
medical product development and regulatory decision making, and other
information that may be helpful in evaluating the applicant's
qualifications as a potential member of the PEC. Only complete
applications submitted by the deadline (see DATES) will be reviewed.
    Additional information may be needed from applicants, including
information relevant to understanding potential sources of conflict of
interest, in which case applicants will be contacted directly.

    Dated: July 19, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15643 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 52853-52854]
[DOCID:fr11se08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12589-001]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions

September 4, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-12589-001.
    c. Date Filed: June 25, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado (d/b/a Xcel
Energy).
    e. Name of Project: Tacoma Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on Cascade Creek,
Little Cascade Creek and Elbert Creek in La Plata and San Juan
Counties, Colorado. The Tacoma Project occupies 221 acres of the San
Juan National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Randy Rhodes, Public Service Company of
Colorado, 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden, Colorado 80403; telephone
(720) 497-2123.
    i. FERC Contact: David Turner<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests,
comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and
preliminary fishway prescriptions is November 3, 2008; reply comments
are due December 18, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    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.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The existing project consists of the following: (1) A 30-foot-
long, 10-foot-high concrete diversion dam on Cascade Creek; (2) a
4,200-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter, semi-circular, elevated wooden
flume; (3) a 1,400-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter steel inverted siphon;
(4) a 14,500-foot-long, 64-inch-diameter steel pipeline; (5) the open
channel of Little Cascade Creek; (6) a 0.5-mile-long, 5-foot-deep lake
(Columbine Lake) formed by a small, partially breached timber dam on
Little Cascade Creek; (7) the open channel of Little Cascade Creek
downstream of Columbine Lake; (8) the 4-acre Aspaas Lake; (9) a 274-
foot-long, 27-foot-high, earth-filled Aspaas dam; (10) a 14-foot-wide,
rock-cut open diversion channel that diverts flow from Aspaas Lake to
Electra Lake; (11) the 800-acre Electra Lake; (12) a 140-foot-long, 20-
foot-high, rock-filled, timber crib dam (Stagecoach dam) serving as the
spillway for Electra Lake; (13) a 1,270-foot-long, 62-foot-high, rock-
filled dam (Terminal dam), with an impermeable asphalt membrane on the
upstream face and an asphalt-paved crest; (14) a 429-foot-long, 54-
inch-diameter steel pipe intake under the Terminal dam that leads
project flows from Electra Lake to a valve vault; (15) the valve vault;
(16) a 9,590-foot-long, 66-inch-diameter welded steel penstock, with a
12-foot-diameter, 116-foot-high surge tank; (17) a bifurcated penstock
structure that diverts flow to a 2,050-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter
welded steel penstock that enters the powerhouse and a 2,050-foot-long,
54-inch diameter welded steel penstock that branches to a 46-inch
diameter pipe immediately prior to entering the powerhouse; (18) a 108-
foot-long, 64-foot-wide, steel frame, brick powerhouse containing three
generating units with a total installed capacity of 8 megawatts (MW),
one of which is currently disabled due to a catastrophic failure and
proposed to be replaced; (19) a 44 kV substation adjacent to the
powerhouse; and (20) appurtenant facilities.
    The project is operated both as a base-load plant and a peaking
plant depending on the time of the year. The applicant proposes the
following changes to project facilities: (1) Project boundary
modifications to reflect lands needed for project operations; (2)
rehabilitation and addition of the 6-foot-high Canyon Creek diversion
to supply potable water, emergency cooling water, and fire protection;
(3) the addition of a 4 MW turbine-generator (Unit 4); and (4) several
recreation and environmental measures.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person

protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of Interventions,                November 3, 2008.
 Recommendations, Preliminary Terms
 and Conditions, and Fishway
 Prescriptions.
Reply Comments Due....................  December 18, 2008.
Issue Draft EA........................  March 18, 2009.
Comments on Draft EA Due..............  April 17, 2009.
Filing of Modified Mandatory Terms and  June 16, 2009.
 Conditions.
Issue Final EA........................  September 14, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21065 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 45516]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4273-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4273-DR), dated June 25, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of June 25, 2016.

    Jackson and Lincoln Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Jackson and Lincoln Counties for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-16623 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54650-54651]
[DOCID:fr18se06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepting for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests and Comments

September 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12721-000.
    c. Date filed: July 31, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Pepperell Hydro Company LLC.
    e. Name of Project: East Pepperell Project.
    f. Location: On Nashua River, in Pepperell, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Dr. Peter B. Clark, P.O. Box 149, 823 Bay
Road, Hamilton, MA 01936,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Etta Foster,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-12721-000) on any comments, protests, or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) The existing 27-foot-high, 275-foot-long, East Pepperell Dam; (2)
an existing intake; (3) an existing impoundment with a surface area of
approximately 1,465 acres and a storage capacity of approximately 6,600
acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 199.8-feet
above mean sea level with 3-foot flashboards in place; (4) an existing
13-foot-diameter, 666-foot-long, wood stave penstock; (5) a proposed
powerhouse containing three generating units having an installed
capacity of 1,920 kW; (5) a switchyard; (6) an existing 450-foot-long,
600 volt transmission line connected to the former Pepperell Paper
Company and an existing 1,600-foot, 69-kV transmission line connected
to the East Pepperell substation of National Grid owned by Mass
Electric Company, and (7) appurtenant facilities.
    The project would have an estimated annual generation of
approximately 7,123 MWh. The applicant plans to sell the generated
energy.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
h. above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no

later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular
application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--a notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letter the title ``Comments'', ``Recommendations
for Terms and Conditions'', ``Protest'', ``Motion to Intervene'',
``Notice of Intent'', or ``Competing Application'', as applicable, and
the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15383 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79398-79400]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96555; File Nos. SR-DTC-2022-011; SR-FICC-2022-008; SR-
NSCC-2022-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Corporation;
Order Granting Proposed Rule Changes To Amend Liquidity Risk Management
Framework To Include a New Section Describing the Process by Which FICC
Would Designate Uncommitted Resources as Qualifying Liquid Resources
and Make Other Changes

December 20, 2022.
    On October 20, 2022, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC''), and National Securities
Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') (each a ``Clearing Agency,'' and
collectively, the ``Clearing Agencies''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2022-
011, SR-FICC-2022-008, and SR-NSCC-2022-013 (the ``Proposed Rule
Changes'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to Amend the
Clearing Agencies Liquidity Risk Management Framework adopted by the
Clearing Agencies. The Proposed Rule Changes were published for comment
in the Federal Register,\3\ and the Commission has received no comments
on the changes proposed therein. This order approves the Proposed Rule
Changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96211 (Nov. 2, 2022), 87
FR 67527 (Nov. 8, 2022) (File No. SR-DTC-2022-011) (``DTC Notice'');
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96210 (Nov. 2, 2022), 87 FR
67516 (Nov. 8, 2022) (File No. SR-FICC-2022-008) (``FICC Notice'');
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96219 (Nov. 3, 2022), 87 FR
67721 (Nov. 9, 2022) (File No. SR-NSCC-2022-013) (``NSCC Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

A. Background

    The Clearing Agencies adopted the Liquidity Risk Management
Framework (``Framework'') to set forth the manner in which they
measure, monitor and manage the liquidity risks that arise in or are
borne by each of the Clearing Agencies, including (i) the manner in
which each Clearing Agency deploys their respective liquidity tools to
meet its settlement obligations on an ongoing and timely basis, and
(ii) each applicable Clearing Agency's use of intraday liquidity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82377 (Dec. 21,
2017), 82 FR 61617 (Dec. 28, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-004; SR-NSCC-2017-
005; SR-FICC-2017-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Process by Which FICC Could Designate Uncommitted Liquidity
Resources as QLR

    The proposed changes to the Framework \5\ would add a new section
describing the process by which FICC could designate uncommitted
liquidity resources as qualifying liquid resources (``QLR'').\6\ FICC
states that, at this time, it does not have uncommitted liquidity
resources designated as QLR; \7\ however, the proposed new section
would allow FICC to have such QLR to the extent the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(B) are followed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition to the proposed changes to the Framework,
submitted as confidential Exhibit 5 to these Proposed Rule Changes,
the Clearing Agencies submitted excerpts from their Liquidity Risk
Management Procedures, submitted as confidential Exhibit 3 to these
Proposed Rule Changes. The Clearing Agencies requested confidential
treatment of Exhibits 3 and 5 pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
    \6\ The Framework defines QLR consistent with the definition set
forth in the Commission's rules. See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14). Rule
17Ad-22(a)(14) defines qualifying liquid resources to include, among
other things, assets that are readily available and convertible into
cash through prearranged funding arrangements, such as prearranged
funding arrangements determined to be highly reliable even in
extreme but plausible market conditions by the board of directors of
the covered clearing agency following a review conducted for this
purpose not less than annually. Id.
    \7\ See FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67516. FICC further
states that, consistent with its existing processes, FICC would
consider whether any uncommitted liquidity resources, including
those that are designated as QLR, would require a proposed rule
change with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
and the rules thereunder, or an advance notice with the Commission
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010, and the rules thereunder. See
id.; 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1); 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \8\ See FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67516; 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new section would provide that, in order to designate
an uncommitted liquidity resource as a QLR, FICC would identify the
properties of each financing arrangement, including the underlying
collateral and the liquidity providers, determine the rigorous analysis
that would be appropriate based on the nature of that liquidity
resource, and conduct that analysis at least annually. The components
and results of that analysis would be presented to the Board Risk
Committee at least annually. When considering whether to designate the
uncommitted resource as a QLR, the Board Risk Committee would determine
if the uncommitted liquid resource is highly reliable under extreme but
plausible market conditions consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(B)
under the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(B). According to FICC,
examples of the type of information that the Board Risk Committee
could rely on in order to determine whether it would be appropriate
to designate the proposed uncommitted resource as a QLR would
include whether (i) FICC has identified securities that may be
pledged pursuant to the proposed financing arrangement and that such
securities are reasonably likely to be readily available for
pledging and acceptable as collateral; (ii) FICC has reviewed the
terms of the proposed financing arrangement to confirm such terms
are current, appropriate and not expected to restrict FICC's use of
the proposed financing arrangement; (iii) FICC has completed due
diligence of each liquidity provider as required by Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(iv) under the Act; and (iv) FICC has developed procedures
to test the proposed financing arrangement at least annually to
confirm the liquidity providers are operationally able to perform
their commitments and are familiar with the drawdown process,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(v) under the
Act. See FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67517, n. 12; 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv) and (v). In addition, FICC would include in
the analysis presented to the Board Risk Committee recommendations
and analyses of an independent third party that the proposed
resource is highly reliable in extreme but plausible market
conditions. See FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67517, n. 12.
The Commission's review of the underlying procedures submitted as
confidential exhibits, see supra note 5, is consistent with FICC's
statements in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Liquidity Resources That Are Not Designated as QLR

    The proposed changes to the Framework would also clarify that FICC
may have access to liquidity resources that are not designated as QLR.
FICC states that it maintains uncommitted master repurchase agreements
(``MRAs'') that can be utilized to finance via the repo market the
securities in FICC's Clearing Funds and those purchased on behalf of a
defaulting Member to raise funds.\10\ According to FICC, the MRAs may
be utilized as liquidity resources in the event of a Member default,
even though they are not designated as QLR.\11\ The proposed rule
change provides that, on a weekly basis, FICC would perform a study to
estimate the depth of the repo market under prevailing market
conditions as well as a sample stress scenario to assess potential
available liquidity in the event of default of the largest Member.
Moreover, at least annually, FICC would conduct counterparty due
diligence reviews that would assess each non-QLR liquidity provider's
ability to provide liquidity to FICC under current market conditions
and would provide a summary of these

reviews to the Board Risk Committee.\12\ In addition, FICC would test
any non-QLR annually with the respective liquidity providers to confirm
that such liquidity providers are operationally able to perform their
commitments and are familiar with the applicable process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67517.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Such due diligence would include reviews of relevant member
financial metrics, results of operational testing, and relevant
market data applicable to the type of securities being financed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a conforming change, the proposed changes would delete language
referring to MRAs as QLR and add a sentence stating that FICC may count
MRAs as QLR if the procedures for designating them described in I.B as
such are followed. The proposed changes would also clarify that this
section of the Framework regarding liquidity resources that are not
designated as QLR applies specifically to FICC.

D. Descriptions of Due Diligence and Testing

    The proposed changes would delete a stand-alone section on the due
diligence and testing of liquidity providers in the Framework, move
those descriptions of the due diligence and testing to the respective
sections of the Framework where each liquidity resource is described,
and clarify where testing would not be performed. The stand-alone
section currently states that the Counterparty Credit Risk department
(``CCR'') reviews the limits, outstanding investments, and collateral
held (if applicable) at each investment counterparty. The proposed
changes would (i) restate this language to make clear that CCR's review
includes a financial analysis of each counterparty, the Clearing
Agencies' investments at each counterparty, and any recommendations for
changes in limits to these investments, and (ii) place the restated
sentence in the section of the Framework related to the specific
liquidity resource that CCR is surveilling.\13\ The stand-alone section
also references formal reviews on the reliability of QLR providers and
specifically ascribes certain due diligence and review responsibilities
to CCR. The proposed changes would describe CCR's obligations regarding
liquidity providers in the appropriate section of the Framework related
to the specific liquidity resource that CCR is surveilling. The
proposed changes also indicate where another department, such as
Treasury, is responsible for actions that the stand-alone section
ascribes to CCR. For non-QLR liquidity resources, the proposed rule
change would describe FICC's role in reviewing these resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Clearing Agencies note that a sentence in the stand-
alone section that refers to a review of each investment
counterparty's deposit level at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
would not be retained because it reflects a drafting error (the
Clearing Agencies are concerned with their deposits at the
counterparties and not the counterparties' deposits at the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York). See DTC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at
67529, n.14; FICC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67517, n.14; NSCC
Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67723, n.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed changes would add language to the
descriptions of DTC's and NSCC's QLR to reflect DTC's and NSCC's
current practices of conducting surveillance of bank lenders to their
committed credit facility, and testing the committed credit facility at
least annually to confirm that the lenders, agents and respective
Clearing Agency are operationally prepared to meet their obligations
under the facility and are familiar with the borrowing process.
    With respect to NSCC, the proposed changes would provide that,
because the process for collecting Supplemental Liquidity Deposits
(``SLD''), pursuant to NSCC Rule 4A, is the same process used for
collecting required deposits to the NSCC Clearing Fund, and Members are
aware of such process, no testing is required for purposes of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(7)(v) under the Act.\14\ In addition, the proposed changes
would state that NSCC conducts Member outreach with those Members whose
liquidity exposure may require them to make SLD in the future.
    The proposed changes would also make a correction to the
description of DTC's Collateral Monitor. Currently, the Framework
states that the Liquidity Risk Product Unit verifies that the
Collateral Monitor will not become negative if the transaction is
processed. Since DTC states that verification is done
automatically,\15\ the proposed rule change would correct the sentence
to state that DTC performs this verification automatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See DTC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Description of the Clearing Agencies' QLR

    The proposed changes would also make certain clarifications
regarding each Clearing Agency's QLR, although they would not change
what resources are available as QLR.
    With respect to FICC, the proposed changes would clarify that each
FICC division has its own Clearing Fund that includes deposits of cash
and delete language regarding the ability of FICC to borrow from the
Clearing Fund that is already covered in the Rules of each
division.\16\ The proposed changes would also clarify that such cash
deposits would be held at creditworthy commercial banks that provide
same day access to funds. Moreover, the proposed changes would clarify
that the rules-based committed Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility
programs are determined for each FICC division per the division's
respective Rules.\17\ Further, the Framework would clarify that FICC's
members are not considered ``liquidity providers'' with respect to
their Clearing Fund deposits, with reference to Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv)
and (v) under the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See FICC/GSD Rule 4, Section 5 and FICC/MBSD Rule 4,
Section 5, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \17\ See FICC/GSD Rule 22A, Section 2a and FICC/MBSD Rule 17,
Section 2a, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to NSCC, the proposed changes would clarify the
description of QLR by deleting language regarding the ability of NSCC
to borrow from the Clearing Fund that is already covered in the NSCC
Rules \19\ and replacing ``medium- and long-term'' with ``senior''
(which covers both medium- and long-term) before ``unsecured notes'' to
simplify terminology.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NSCC Rule 4, Section 12, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \20\ See NSCC Notice, supra note 3, 87 FR at 67723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would also clarify the descriptions of DTC's
and NSCC's QLR by adding language on same day access to funds regarding
deposits of DTC Participants Fund and NSCC Clearing Fund in
creditworthy commercial banks. Moreover, the proposed changes would
make clear that DTC Participants and NSCC Members, respectively, are
not considered ``liquidity providers'' with respect to their DTC
Participants Fund deposits and NSCC Clearing Fund deposits, with
reference to Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv) and (v) under the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(iv) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Technical Changes

    The proposed changes include certain technical changes as follows:
     Make conforming and cross-reference changes in the
Executive Summary;
     Delete a sentence that states that liquidity resources are
maintained consistent with risk tolerances, whereas the correct
statement is that liquidity resources are maintained consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act,\22\ which is already stated elsewhere
in the Framework;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Make conforming and cross-reference changes in the general
section on ``Liquidity Resources;''

     Restate the first sentence in the section describing
FICC's QLR for clarity;
     Remove cross-references and phrases referencing other
sections of the Framework where such references are no longer correct;
     Add the word ``FICC'' to the end of a sentence where it
was inadvertently deleted; and
     Renumber the last three sections of the Framework to
account for the deletion of the section on due diligence/testing.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \23\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. After carefully considering the Proposed Rule
Changes and confidential Exhibit 3,\24\ the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Clearing
Agencies. In particular, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule
Change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) \25\ of the Act and
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \24\ See supra note 5.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \27\ requires, in part, that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would update the Framework to (1) describe the
process by which FICC would designate uncommitted liquidity resources
as QLR; (2) clarify that FICC may have access to liquidity resources
that are not designated as QLR; (3) delete the stand-alone section on
due diligence and testing of liquidity providers, and instead add due
diligence and testing descriptions where each liquidity resource is
described; (4) clarify the description of FICC's QLR; (5) clarify the
description of NSCC's and DTC's QLR, add language to reflect NSCC's and
DTC's current due diligence and testing processes regarding their
committed line of credit, and make a correction to the description of
DTC's Collateral Monitor; and (6) make technical changes.
    The Commission believes that these proposed changes will improve
the clarity of descriptions of the Clearing Agencies' Framework and
enable the Clearing Agencies to more effectively deploy their risk
management tools to manage liquidity risks presented by their members.
For example, the proposed changes will describe the specific process
through which FICC could designate uncommitted resources as QLR, and
this process would be designed to ensure that any uncommitted resource
that is designated as QLR would be highly reliable in extreme but
plausible market conditions. The proposed changes, therefore, would
enhance the Clearing Agencies' liquidity risk management functions,
which are designed help the Clearing Agencies maintain sufficient
liquid resources to meet their potential funding obligations to timely
settle outstanding transactions of a defaulting participant or family
of affiliated participants. For these reasons, the Commission finds
that the proposed changes are designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody and
control of the Clearing Agencies consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act \30\ requires covered clearing
agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, effectively
measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is
borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, meeting the
requirements set forth in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes described above
are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7). By
clarifying FICC's process for designating uncommitted liquidity
resources as QLR, the proposed changes are designed to ensure that any
uncommitted resource that is designated as QLR would be highly reliable
in extreme but plausible market conditions to be consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14) under the Act,\31\ thereby
facilitating FICC's ability to hold QLR sufficient to meet its minimum
liquidity resource requirements under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7). Moreover, by
identifying liquidity resources that are not QLR and providing various
clarifications, the proposed changes would reduce ambiguity and thus
assist risk management staff in the performance of their duties
associated with the Clearing Agencies' compliance with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes that proposed changes
are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \33\
and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\34\ that proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2022-011, SR-FICC-2022-008, and
SR-NSCC-2022-013, be, and hereby are, approved.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \35\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28088 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34677-34681]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12136]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0619; FRL-10010-22-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Removal of the Vehicle I/M Program,
Hamilton County, TN

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 Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), through a letter dated February 26, 2020.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Tennessee's
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements for Hamilton
County from the federally approved SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
removal of the I/M program requirements for Hamilton County from the
federally approved SIP because removing the requirements is consistent
with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and applicable regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0619 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). In December 2002,
Hamilton and Meigs counties in Tennessee and Catoosa county in Georgia
(also known as the Chattanooga Ozone Area) entered into EPA's Early
Action Compact (EAC) program.\1\ See 70 FR 50199 (August 26, 2005). As
part of the EAC as a control strategy to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard), Tennessee
added Hamilton County to the State's I/M rules at Chapter 29 of the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR 1200-03-29) to
require all light-duty motor vehicles registered in Hamilton County to
be inspected annually for compliance with emissions performance and
anti-tampering test criteria.\2\ See id. The I/M program in Hamilton
County began in April 2005. The Chattanooga Ozone Area met the EAC
requirements by December 31, 2007, demonstrating attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of meeting the EAC agreement, on April
2, 2008, EPA designated the Chattanooga Ozone Area as attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 17897. The ozone NAAQS was
revised in 2008 to a value of 0.075 ppm and again in 2015 to 0.070 ppm.
See 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008) and 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Hamilton County was designated as unclassifiable/attainment and
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS,
respectively. See 40 CFR 81.343. Hamilton County is currently in
attainment with all ozone NAAQS. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In December 2002, several states submitted early action
compact agreements pledging to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
earlier than required. The states had to meet certain criteria and
milestones. The most significant milestone was that the EAC areas
had to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007.
    \2\ The I/M program in Hamilton County was not required by the
CAA because the Act only requires I/M programs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or
extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 1997, EPA set the 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS at 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\) and the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 [micro]g/m\3\. See 62
FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). On January 5, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton
County in Tennessee, Catoosa and Walker counties in Georgia, and a
portion of Jackson County in Alabama (also known as the Chattanooga
PM2.5 Area) as nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). On October 15,
2009, Tennessee submitted a PM2.5 attainment SIP and
identified the I/M program, which had already been implemented to
comply with the ozone NAAQS, as a control measure for the on-road
mobile sector. See 80 FR 56418 (September 18, 2015) and 80 FR 68253
(November 4, 2015). It was determined that no additional emission
reductions were necessary for on-road mobile sources beyond the fully
implemented (existing) I/M program because the Chattanooga
PM2.5 Area was modeled to attain the NAAQS with the current
regulatory scheme in 2009. See id. On November 4, 2015, Hamilton County
was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. See 80 FR 68253. On August 24, 2016, EPA took final action to
revoke the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for areas designated attainment
or in maintenance for the standard. See 81 FR 58010.
    On May 15, 2018, a Tennessee law which states that ``no inspection
and maintenance program shall be employed in this state on or after the
effective date of this act'' was signed. See Tenn. Code Ann. Sec.  68-
201-119. The Tennessee law states that it ``shall take effect [120]
calendar days following the date on which the [EPA] approves a revised
state implementation plan. . . .'' See Motor Vehicles--Inspection and
Inspectors--Air Pollution, 2018 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch. 953 (H.B.
1782). Accordingly, Tennessee submitted the February 26, 2020, SIP
revision requesting that EPA remove the requirements to implement an I/
M program for Hamilton County. A description of the SIP revision and
EPA's analysis is provided in Section II below.

II. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal?

    Through a letter dated February 26, 2020,\3\ Tennessee requested
that TAPCR 1200-03-29 be removed from the Tennessee SIP. In addition,
Tennessee requested that EPA remove the requirement for Hamilton County
to implement an I/M program as part of the EAC that was approved by EPA
into the non-regulatory portion of the Tennessee SIP on August 26,
2005. See 70 FR

50199. Tennessee also provided a noninterference demonstration to
support the removal of the requirements for the I/M program in Hamilton
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA received Tennessee's SIP revision on February 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section I above, Hamilton County implemented the I/
M program requirements as a control strategy in the EAC to meet the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Currently, Hamilton County is designated
attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or attainment/unclassifiable for
all ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.343.
    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the I/M requirements for
Hamilton County from the Tennessee SIP, including Chapter 29 of the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR 1200-03-29).\4\ EPA
is also proposing to find that the removal of the I/M program
requirements for Hamilton County is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment,
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirements of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l) non-
interference demonstrations on a case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as
applying to all NAAQS that are in effect. For I/M SIP revisions, the
most relevant pollutants to consider are ozone precursors (i.e.,
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA cannot propose to remove TAPCR 1200-03-29 from the SIP
in its entirety at this time because this regulation also applies to
Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to remove Hamilton County from TAPCR 1200-03-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision
included a non-interference demonstration to support the State's
request to remove the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for
Hamilton County. Tennessee's non-interference demonstration evaluates
the impact that the removal of the I/M program for Hamilton County
would have on the ability to attain and maintain any of the NAAQS.
Based on the analysis below, EPA is proposing to find that removal of
the I/M program requirements for Hamilton County meets the requirements
of CAA section 110(l) because it would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or any other requirement of the CAA.\5\ \6\
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The initial designations for the PM10 NAAQS were
completed on March 15, 1991. See 56 FR 11101. The entire state of
Tennessee was designated as attainment for PM10 and has
been attainment for every PM10 standard thereafter. The
pollution control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject
to the I/M program are not designed to reduce emissions of
PM10; therefore, removing the I/M program requirements
will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of
PM10. EPA proposes to find that removal of the SIP-
approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton County would not
interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS.
    \6\ On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS to 75 ppb which became effective on August 23, 2010. See 75 FR
35520. On January 9, 2018, EPA designated most of the state of
Tennessee, including Hamilton County, as attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 1098. EPA has
designated Sullivan County, Tennessee nonattainment and Sumner
County as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), and 81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016).
The pollution control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles
subject to the I/M program are not designed to reduce emissions for
SO2; therefore, removing the I/M program requirements
will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of
SO2. EPA proposes to find that removal of the SIP-
approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton County would not
interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS.
    \7\ On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised lead NAAQS
of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. See 73 FR 66964. On November 22, 2011, EPA
designated a majority of the State of Tennessee, including Hamilton
County as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The
Bristol Area in Sullivan County was designated as nonattainment; and
the Knox County Area was later designated as unclassifiable. See 76
FR 72907; see also 75 FR 71033 (November 22, 2011). Subsequently,
the Bristol Area was redesignated to attainment. See 81 FR 44210
(July 7, 2016). Effective January 1, 1996, EPA banned the sale of
leaded fuel for use in on-road vehicles. The pollution control
systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program
are not designed to reduce emissions for lead; therefore, removal of
the I/M program requirements would not cause an increase in
emissions of lead. EPA proposes to find that removal of the SIP-
approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton County would not
interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the lead
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    As discussed in Section I above, on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856),
EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm.
Subsequently, on March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 ppm to provide increased
protection of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March
27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997 but are set at a more
protective level. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS are attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. On
October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA published a final rule lowering the
level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm or 70 parts per billion
(ppb) and retaining the same form.
    Hamilton County is currently designated as attainment,
unclassifiable/attainment, or attainment/unclassifiable for all ozone
NAAQS.\8\ See 40 CFR 81.343. Ambient air quality monitoring for ozone
is being conducted at two locations in the Chattanooga, TN-GA
metropolitan statistical area (MSA).\9\ In the SIP submittal, the State
provides recent 8-hour ozone design values in ppb (see Table 1). The
values in Table 1 below indicate attainment of the 2015 8-hour NAAQS of
70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Visit https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2019/#home or
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data for air quality data
including current status and trends for all NAAQS.
    \9\ The Chattanooga TN-GA MSA is comprised of Hamilton, Marion,
and Sequatchie counties in Tennessee and Catoosa, Dade, and Walker
counties in Georgia.

                                 Table 1--Hamilton County Monitor Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Ozone design value, ppb
            Site name            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2013-2015       2014-2016       2015-2017       2016-2018       2017-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastside Utility................              66              68              67              66              64
Soddy Daisy.....................              64              65              65              64              64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee's noninterference analysis includes modeling to calculate
ozone precursor emissions, as well as a sensitivity analysis to
demonstrate the impact of emissions increases on monitored ozone
values. Tennessee's non-interference demonstration utilized EPA's
MOVES2014 emission modeling system to estimate ozone precursor

emissions for mobile sources, both on-road and non-road. Tennessee
chose 2022 as the future year for the State's non-interference
demonstration because it is the year that Hamilton County anticipates
that it will cease implementation of the I/M program due to the CAA's
SIP processing timeframe and the language of Tenn. Code Ann. Sec.  68-
201-119. The point source emissions for Hamilton County were obtained
from the 2014 version 2 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and grown to
the year 2022 using the appropriate EPA growth factors or using
engineering judgment based on potential growth in demand. For non-point
sources, the inventory was developed using EPA established
methodologies published by EPA,\10\ as detailed in Appendix G of the
February 26, 2020, SIP revision. Tennessee calculated projected
emissions in the year 2022 by adding all four sectors (on-road, point,
non-road, and non-point) together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 2017 NEI Final Plan: Revised July 2018, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2017_nei_plan_final_revised_jul2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the total projected emissions in 2022 with the I/M
program in Hamilton County. Table 3 shows the total projected emissions
in 2022 without the I/M program in Hamilton County.\11\ By 2022, the
emissions benefits resulting from Tennessee's I/M program for Hamilton
County are predicted to be a 99.7 tons per year (tpy) reduction of
NOX and a 146.23 tpy reduction of VOCs. See Table 4. On a
percentage basis, removal of the I/M program in Hamilton County is
expected to result in a 1.1 percent increase in total NOX
emissions and a 1.5 percent increase in on-road VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Since the I/M program only impacts emissions in the on-road
sector, the projected emissions in other sectors (point, non-road
and non-point) are the same between the ``with the I/M program'' and
the ``without the I/M program'' scenarios.

                      Table 2--Hamilton County Area
  [Total 2022 projected emissions of NOX and VOC (in tpy) with the I/M
                                program]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                         NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road.................................           4,613           2,127
Point...................................           1,314             825
Non-road................................           2,220             935
Non-Point...............................           1,220           5,744
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           9,367           9,632
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Table 3--Hamilton County Area
 [Total 2022 projected emissions of NOX and VOC (in tpy) without the I/M
                                program]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                         NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road.................................           4,712           2,273
Point...................................           1,314             825
Non-road................................           2,220             935
Non-Point...............................           1,220           5,744
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           9,467           9,778
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 4--Summary of NOX and VOC Emissions Increases Associated With
            Removing the Hamilton County From the I/M Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NOX Emissions
                                              in 2022      VOC Emissions
                                                              in 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total On-Road Emissions for Hamilton               4,613           2,127
 County in Current I/M Program (tpy)....
Total On-Road Emissions after Removing             4,712           2,273
 Hamilton County from I/M Program (tpy).
Total Emissions for Hamilton County in             9,367           9,632
 Current I/M Program (all sectors) (tpy)
Total Emissions after Removing Hamilton            9,467           9,778
 County from I/M Program (all sectors)
 (tpy)..................................
Emissions Increases (tpy)...............            99.7           146.2
Emissions Increases (% of On-Road                   2.2%            6.9%
 Emissions for Hamilton County).........
Emissions Increases (% of Total                     1.1%            1.5%
 Emissions for Hamilton County, all
 sectors)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further quantify the potential impact of removal of the I/M
program, Tennessee completed a photochemical modeling sensitivity
analysis. As shown in Table 5, the sensitivity analysis indicates that
the largest increase in ozone concentration would be at the Eastside
Utility monitor at 0.209 ppb.

 Table 5--Results of Sensitivity Analysis, Predicted Increases of Ozone
        Concentrations at Monitors in the Chattanooga Ozone Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Predicted
                                                          ozone increase
                                             2016-2018        due to
                Site name                  ozone design    combined NOX
                                           value  (ppb)       and VOC
                                                             increases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastside Utility........................              66           0.209
Soddy Daisy.............................              64           0.148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. EPA therefore proposes to find that
removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton
County would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). On August 24,
2016, EPA took final action to revoke the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
for areas designated attainment or in maintenance. See 81 FR 58010.
    On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the annual
primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR
3086 (January 15, 2013).
    As discussed in Section I above, EPA published designations for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and
April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844). On January 5, 2005, EPA designated the
Chattanooga PM2.5 Area nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944. On November 4, 2015, Hamilton
County was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA approved a maintenance plan and
reasonably available control measure demonstration for the Chattanooga
PM2.5 Area. See 80 FR 68253. The Chattanooga
PM2.5 Area has continued to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, and on January 15, 2015,
EPA published notices determining that the Hamilton County was
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively. See 74 FR 58688 and 80 FR 2206, respectively.
    In Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision, the State concluded
that the removal of Hamilton County from Tennessee's SIP-approved I/M
program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
PM2.5 NAAQS for the reasons outlined below. First,
photochemical modeling using source apportionment analysis, performed
in connection with the November 13, 2014, redesignation request and
associated maintenance plan for the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area
(also known as the Chattanooga PM2.5 Redesignation Request
and Maintenance Plan) showed that the greatest contribution to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations in the Chattanooga PM2.5
Area is from secondary sulfates, which are formed from atmospheric
reactions with sulfur dioxide (SO2), and that a very small
portion of the total PM2.5 in the atmosphere is formed from
NOX and VOCs.\12\ Second, when the 2022 projected
NOX emissions in the I/M removal request are compared to the
emissions inventory for 2022 within the Chattanooga PM2.5
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, the projections in the I/M
removal request are 2,850 tons less. Third, the Chattanooga
PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan did not
rely on the I/M program as a permanent and federally-enforceable
measure to maintain compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
approved maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance through 2025 without
the I/M program (i.e., projected on-road mobile emissions were modeled
without the I/M program). Furthermore, the pollution control systems
for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not
designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and sulfate
(i.e., the primary precursor for PM2.5 formation in the
Southeast); therefore, removing counties from the program will not have
any impact on ambient concentrations of PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See document EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904-0002 at regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Tennessee provided information regarding the monitored
values of PM2.5 in the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area.
Ambient air monitoring shows that the 2019 design value for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area is 19
[micro]g/m\3\, which is below the 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
The 2019 design value for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area is 8.8 [micro]g/m\3\, which is
below the 2012 annual NAAQS of 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\.\13\ The small
increases in NOX emissions of 1.1 percent and VOC emissions
of 1.5 percent that are anticipated to result in 2022 from the removal
of the I/M program in Hamilton County is expected to only cause a small
increase (if any) in the PM2.5 design value for the
Chattanooga PM2.5 Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The design value for the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area
is at monitor 132950002 in Walker County, Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that
removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton
County would not interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of
the PM2.5 NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS
14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The annual standard of 53 ppb is based on the annual mean
concentration. See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 1-hour NO2 standard is set at 100 ppb, based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR
9532.
    Based on the technical analysis in Tennessee's February 26, 2020,
SIP revision, the projected increase in total NOX emissions
(of which NO2 is a component) in 2022 associated with the

removal of Hamilton County from the I/M program is 1.1 percent. All
NO2 monitors in the State are measuring below the annual
NO2 standard, and all near road monitors are measuring well
below the 1-hour NO2 standard. There are no NO2
monitors in the Chattanooga PM2.5 Area.
    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that
removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for Hamilton
County would not interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of
the NO2 NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS

    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the standards
since its last review of the standards in 2011. The primary NAAQS for
CO consist of: (1) An 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, not to be exceeded more
than once in a year (i.e., the second highest, non-overlapping 8-hour
average concentration cannot exceed the standard); and (2) a 1-hour
average of 35 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once in a year.
Hamilton County has always been designated as unclassifiable/attainment
for the CO NAAQS.
    In Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision, the State concluded
that the removal of Hamilton County from the SIP-approved I/M program
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
MOVES2014 mobile emissions modeling results show an increase in CO
emissions of 6.9 percent in Hamilton County in 2022 as a result of
removing the I/M program for Hamilton County. This increase is not
expected to interfere with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in
Hamilton County. Design values for Tennessee for the 1-hour and 8-hour
CO NAAQS in 2019 were 1.6 and 1.8, respectively, which are less than 20
percent of the CO NAAQS for both the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to
find that removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for
Hamilton County would not interfere with continued attainment or
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the I/M requirements for
Hamilton County from the Tennessee SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
removal of the I/M program requirements for Hamilton County from the
federally approved SIP because removing the requirements is consistent
with the CAA and applicable regulations.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 29, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-12136 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60448-60449]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-65-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Petition of Northwest
Natural Gas Company for Approval of Rates to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230825-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-981-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2023 Operational Entitlements
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230828-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/23.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 28, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18962 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P