[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68280-68281]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1617]

Blood Products Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
amendment to the notice of the meeting of the Blood Products Advisory
Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of
October 22, 2014. The amendment is being made to reflect a change in
the Agenda portion of the document. There are no other changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind, Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
240-402-8054 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 22, 2014
(79 FR 63131), FDA announced that a meeting of the Blood Products
Advisory Committee would be held on December 2 and 3, 2014. On page
63131, in the third column, the Agenda portion of the document is
changed to read as follows:
    Agenda: On December 2, 2014, the Committee will meet in open
session to hear scientific data related to reconsideration of the
current blood donor deferral policy for men who have had sex with
another man (MSM) even one time since 1977. The Committee will be
presented with an update on the November 13, 2014, meeting of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood and
Tissue Safety and Availability where the MSM blood donor deferral
policy will be discussed. In the afternoon, the Committee will hear an
informational presentation on Ebola virus, the potential implications
for blood safety in the United States and FDA's considerations on the
collection of convalescent plasma for investigational use.
    On December 3, 2014, the Blood Products Advisory Committee will be
seated as a device classification panel. In open session, the panel
will discuss the appropriate device classification of

blood establishment computer software (BECS) and accessories to BECS.
Blood establishment computer software is currently subject to the
premarket notification (510(k)) provisions of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act. In the afternoon, an informational presentation will
be made regarding the emergence of chikungunya virus infections in the
Western Hemisphere and potential implications for blood transfusion
safety. The Committee will also hear an informational presentation on
the first survey of the Rapid Donor Surveillance (RapidDOS) project on
Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-26969 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 128 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 39897]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2176-000]

LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
LA3 West Baton Rouge, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 16, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 26, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14280 7-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58578-58580]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70440; File No. SR-BYX-2013-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
References to Obsolete Functionality

September 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 12, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to eliminate reference to a Market
Maker order functionality in Rule 11.8(e) that has now been retired by
the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Background
    On August 29, 2012, the Commission approved BYX's proposed rule
change to adopt a new Market Maker Peg Order functionality that was
designed to replace the automated functionality (commonly referred to
as the Market Maker Quoter) provided to Market Makers in Rule
11.8(e).\5\ The Exchange originally adopted Rule 11.8(e) as part of an
effort to address issues uncovered by the aberrant trading that
occurred on

May 6, 2010.\6\ The Market Maker Quoter functionality was designed to
help Market Makers meet the enhanced obligations imposed on them post
May 6, 2010 \7\ and avoid execution of Market Maker ``stub quotes'' in
instances of aberrant trading.\8\ Although the Market Maker Quoter was
successful in allowing Exchange Market Makers to meet their enhanced
obligations and in avoiding the deleterious effect on the markets
caused by ``stub quote'' executions, the functionality presented
difficulties to Market Makers in meeting their obligations under Rule
15c3-5 under the Act (the ``Market Access Rule'') \9\ and Regulation
SHO.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67755 (Aug. 29, 2012),
77 FR 54630 (Sept. 5, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-012).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63342 (Nov. 18, 2010),
75 FR 71768 (Nov. 24, 2010) (SR-BYX-2010-001).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ For each issue in which a market maker was registered, the
Market Maker Quoter functionality optionally created a quotation for
display to comply with market making obligations. Compliant
displayed quotations were thereafter allowed to rest and were not
adjusted unless the relationship between the quotation and its
related national best bid or national best offer, as appropriate,
either: (a) shrank to a specified number of percentage points away
from the Designated Percentage towards the then current national
best bid or national best offer, which number of percentage points
was determined and published in a circular distributed to Members
from time to time; or (b) expanded to within 0.5% of the applicable
percentage necessary to trigger an individual stock trading pause,
whereupon such bid or offer was cancelled and re-entered at the
Designated Percentage away from the then current national best bid
and national best offer, or if no national best bid or national best
offer, at the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale
from the responsible single plan processor. Quotations independently
entered by market makers were allowed to move freely towards the
national best bid or national best offer, as appropriate, for
potential execution. In the event of an execution against a quote
generated pursuant to the Market Maker Quoter functionality, the
Market Maker's quote was refreshed on the executed side of the
market at the applicable Designated Percentage away from the then
national best bid (offer), or if no national best bid (offer), the
last reported sale. See Rule 11.8(e).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.200-242.204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange introduced the Market Maker Peg Order to simplify
Market Maker compliance with the requirements of the Market Access Rule
and Regulation SHO. The Market Maker Peg Order allows Market Makers to
control the origination of their orders, as required by the Market
Access Rule, while also allowing Market Makers to make marking and
locate determinations prior to order entry, as required by Regulation
SHO. As such, Market Makers are fully able to comply with the
requirements of the Market Access Rule and Regulation SHO, as they
would when placing any order, while also meeting their Exchange market
making obligations.
Retirement of the Market Maker Quoter
    At the time of Market Maker Peg Order rule filing and in the
subsequent filing to amend the Market Maker Peg Order, the Exchange
noted its intention to continue offering the Market Maker Quoter
functionality for a three-month period after the implementation of the
Market Maker Peg Order to afford Market Makers the opportunity to
gradually transition away from the previous functionality.\11\
Accordingly, the Exchange did not believe it appropriate to eliminate
the language authorizing the Market Maker Quoter functionality
immediately upon the Market Maker Peg Order's effectiveness. However,
as of June 24, 2013, the Exchange decommissioned the Market Maker
Quoter functionality pursuant to its transition plan. Thus, the
Exchange is now proposing to delete Rule 11.8(e), which authorizes the
functionality, and hold the rule number in reserve.>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67382 (July 10,
2012), 77 FR 41842, 41843 (July 16, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-012);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69309 (Apr. 4, 2013), 78 FR
21455 (Apr. 10, 2013) (SR-BYX-2013-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which
requires exchange rules to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change fulfills these requirements because it deletes
reference to a functionality that is now retired, thereby eliminating
any investor uncertainty related to the status of this functionality.
As noted in the Exchange's Market Maker Peg Order filing, the
transition period during which both the Market Maker Quoter
functionality and the Market Maker Peg Order were operational was
designed to minimize the potential market impact caused by the
implementation of the new order type.\14\ The Exchange believes that
deleting reference to the Market Maker Quoter functionality is now
appropriate and in furtherance of the public interest given the passage
of time since the Market Maker Peg Order became effective and the
Market Maker Quoter was decommissioned.\15\

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

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67382 (July 10,
2012), 77 FR 41842 (July 16, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-012).
    \15\ See id.; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69309
(Apr. 4, 2013), 78 FR 21455 (Apr. 10, 2013) (SR-BYX-2013-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BYX believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the
Act \16\ in that it does not impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed rule change will remove reference to a functionality that
has already been retired. Moreover, given the fact that the Market
Maker Quoter's replacement, the Market Maker Peg Order, has been
effective and operational for many months, the Exchange does not
believe removing reference to the retired functionality will have any
impact on the current competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately
upon filing. The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay
will allow the Exchange to quickly remove language in its rules that is
not supported by any

functionality on the Exchange. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, as doing so will allow the Exchange's rule
text to reflect the its existing functionality, thereby helping to
avoid any potential investor confusion. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2013-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2013-032. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BYX-2013-032, and should be submitted on or before
October 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23125 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13055-13061]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5266]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0118; FRL-9642-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama:
Removal of State Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Birmingham
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, through parallel processing, a
draft revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM),
on January 10, 2012. The proposed revision modifies Alabama's SIP to
move Chapter 335-3-20 ``Control of Fuels,'' which includes the
regulation that governs the State's 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi)
requirement for the low-Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel program in
Jefferson and Shelby Counties (hereafter referred to as the
``Birmingham Area'') from the active measures portion of the Alabama
SIP to the contingency measures portions of the maintenance plans for
the Birmingham Area for the ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standards), and of the proposed maintenance plans
for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
standards, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, if
finalized. If this change to the SIP is finalized, the federal RVP
requirement of 7.8 psi will apply for the Birmingham Area. EPA is
proposing to approve this SIP revision because the State has
demonstrated that it is consistent with section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0118, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0118, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0118. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is parallel processing?
II. What is the background of the RVP requirement?
III. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's submittal?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is parallel processing?

    Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal,
parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to
actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of
the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its
public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is
published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the
state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal
action.
    If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State
is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed
rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those
changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of
proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only
after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
    On January 10, 2012, the State of Alabama, through ADEM, submitted
a request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the
State had already taken through public comment. ADEM requested parallel
processing so that EPA could begin to take action on its draft SIP
revision in advance of the State's submission of the final SIP
revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will
occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Alabama, (2)
submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3)
evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State after the
January 10, 2012, draft was submitted to EPA.

II. What is the background of the RVP requirement?

    The following subsections of this proposed rulemaking summarize
both the federal and state RVP requirements in the Birmingham Area.
Volatility is the property of a liquid fuel that defines its
evaporation characteristics. RVP is an abbreviation for ``Reid vapor
pressure,'' a common measure of and generic term for gasoline
volatility. Pursuant to the CAA, EPA regulates the vapor pressure of
gasoline sold at retail stations during the high ozone season (June 1
to September 15) to reduce evaporative emissions from gasoline that
contribute to ground-level ozone and diminish the effects of ozone-
related health problems.

A. Background for the Federal Requirement for RVP for the Birmingham
Area

    Section 211(h) of the CAA requires EPA to set a maximum RVP
standard of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season, which is defined as
June 1st through September 15th of each year. See also 40 CFR 80.27.
The CAA provides for more stringent requirements to be established for
ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, CAA section 211(h) states:

    Not later than 6 months after November 15, 1990, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations making it unlawful for
any person during the high ozone season (as defined by the
Administrator) to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for
supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with a Reid
Vapor Pressure in excess of 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Such
regulations shall also establish more stringent Reid Vapor Pressure
standards in a nonattainment area as the Administrator finds
necessary to generally achieve comparable evaporative emissions (on
a per-vehicle basis) in nonattainment areas, taking into
consideration the enforceability of such standards, the need of an
area for emission control and economic factors.

In accordance with CAA section 211(h), EPA established a two-phase
reduction in high ozone season commercial gasoline volatility. These
rules focus on reducing gasoline emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC). VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are
precursors for ground-level ozone. Phase I was applicable to calendar
years 1989 through 1991. Depending on the state and month, gasoline RVP
was not to exceed 10.5 psi, 9.5 psi, or 9.0 psi. See 54 FR 11868 (March
22, 1989). Phase II was applicable to calendar years 1992 and later.
Depending on the state and month, gasoline RVP may not exceed 9.0 psi
or 7.8 psi. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). A current listing of the
RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
    The Birmingham Area was originally classified as a 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The Birmingham
nonattainment Area at that time was geographically defined as Jefferson
County, Alabama. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law under section
181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the Birmingham nonattainment area as
a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone and added Shelby
County to the nonattainment area (56 FR 56693). The nonattainment
classification for the Birmingham marginal ozone area was based on
ambient air sampling measurements for ozone made during 1987-1989. As
an ozone nonattainment area, the Birmingham Area was subject to the
federal RVP requirements of 7.8 psi for both Jefferson and Shelby
Counties. Subsequently, in 2001, EPA approved a state fuel program that
imposed a 7.0 psi requirement for this area, under section 211(c)(4)(C)
of the CAA. The action being proposed today

would move the 7.0 psi requirement from the active portion of the
Alabama SIP to the contingency measures portion of the maintenance
plans for the ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Throughout this proposed rulemaking, EPA's reference to the
maintenance plans for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS is in reference to the proposed maintenance
plans as these plans have been proposed for approval by EPA but have
not yet been finalized.

B. Background for the State Requirement for RVP in the Birmingham Area

    Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA allows states to seek a waiver from
EPA to adopt into the federally-approved SIP, a state fuel program that
is more stringent than federal requirements. Specifically, CAA section
211(c)(4)(C)(i) states:

    A State may prescribe and enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle
emission control, a control or prohibition respecting the use of a
fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine if
an applicable implementation plan for such State under section 7410
of this title so provides The Administrator may approve such
provision in an implementation plan, or promulgate an implementation
containing such a provision, only if he finds that the State control
or prohibition is necessary to achieve the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard which the plan implements.
The Administrator may find that a State control or prohibition is
necessary to achieve that standard if no other measure that would
bring about timely attainment exist, or if other measures exist and
are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or
impracticable. The Administrator may make a finding of necessity
under this subparagraph even if the plan for the area does not
contain an approved demonstration of timely attainment.

    As mentioned above, the Birmingham Area was designated as a
marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR
56693. Marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas such as the Birmingham
Area were required to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS no later than
November 15, 1993. However, the Birmingham Area did not attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS by the required deadline and thus, EPA issued a SIP
Call for Alabama to develop and submit a plan on how the Area would
comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.
This plan, also known as an attainment demonstration, contained the
control strategies and underlying regulations that Alabama would use to
come into compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 1, 2000,
ADEM submitted the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the
Birmingham Area as a revision to the Alabama SIP. Among other control
strategies and regulations, this attainment demonstration included a
request for EPA to approve Alabama's regulation to establish
requirements for low sulfur and low-RVP requirements for the Birmingham
Area pursuant to 211(c)(4)(C)(i).
    In a final rulemaking on November 7, 2001 (66 FR 56218), EPA
determined that Alabama's November 1, 2000, SIP revision contained the
necessary data and analyses to support a finding under section
211(c)(4)(C)(i) that the State's low sulfur and low-RVP requirements
were necessary for the Birmingham Area to achieve the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. In summary, Alabama's low sulfur/low-RVP fuel program required
that all gasoline sold during the control period (June 1st through
September 15th) in the Birmingham Area contain a maximum RVP of 7.0 psi
and maximum sulfur levels of 150 parts per million volume-weighted
average. Alabama's control on sulfur applied only through the summer of
2003. After that time, federal controls on sulfur in gasoline went into
effect. There was no termination date for the low-RVP portion of
Alabama's fuel regulation.
    The Birmingham Area subsequently attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and was redesignated for that NAAQS on March 12, 2004. See 69 FR 11798.
At that time, ADEM included the 7.0 psi RVP requirement in its
maintenance plan. Thereafter, the Birmingham Area was designated as a
nonattainment for the more stringent 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective
June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858). On May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27631), the
Birmingham Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.\1\ As part of the requirement to be redesignated to
attainment, ADEM developed a maintenance plan pursuant to CAA section
175A(a) that demonstrated the Area would maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. In that maintenance
demonstration, ADEM, in its emissions projections, adopted a
conservative approach to the fuel requirement in the Area by assuming a
high ozone season RVP requirement of 9.0 psi as opposed to 7.0 psi.\2\
The State demonstrated that the Area could continue to maintain the
ozone NAAQS with the 9.0 psi requirement. Nonetheless, the State's RVP
requirement of 7.0 psi remains in the active portion of the SIP, and
the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi also remains applicable through
40 CFR 80.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS--also known as the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Currently, the
Agency is reviewing individual area's compliance with the revised 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and anticipates completing a designation process in
the Spring of 2012. Today's rulemaking is not related to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, however, EPA notes that 2008-2010 and preliminary
2009-2011 monitoring data suggests that the Birmingham Area is
attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    \2\ The Birmingham Area was also designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
association with these redesignation request, EPA proposed to
approve maintenance plans which assume a high ozone season RVP
requirement of 7.8 psi as opposed to the State requirement of 7.0
psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2012, ADEM submitted a draft revision to Alabama's
SIP to move Chapter 335-3-20 ``Control of Fuels'' from the active
measures portion of the Alabama SIP to the contingency measures
portions of the maintenance plans for the applicable ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. ADEM explained that the 7.0 psi requirement
would be moved to the maintenance plans as a contingency measure for
the ozone NAAQS, the annual 1997 PM2.5 standard and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards; however, it would be removed from
the SIP as an active requirement. The applicable RVP would then be the
federal standard of 7.8 psi. Because the state RVP requirement of 7.0
psi is a part of the federally-approved SIP for Alabama, the State must
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l) to move this state-level
RVP requirement from the active measures portions of the SIP to the
contingency measures portions of the affected maintenance plans. More
details on CAA section 110(l) requirements are provided below.

III. What are the Section 110(l) requirements?

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Alabama's January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision is whether this
requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA. Section
110(l) of the CAA states:

    Plan Revision--Each revision to an implementation plan submitted
by a State under this chapter shall be adapted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

    Because the RVP requirements currently are a part of the SIP, the
revision must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Alabama's
January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision is requesting

only that the state-level requirement of 7.0 psi be moved from the
active measures portions of the Alabama SIP to the contingency measures
portions of the maintenance plans for the ozone NAAQS, the annual 1997
PM2.5 standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards. Therefore, as part of Alabama's SIP revision request to
change its RVP requirement, Alabama must demonstrate that the revision
will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any of the
NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    Developing what is necessary for a SIP revision to comply with
section 110(l) is a case-by-case determination based upon the
circumstances of each revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to
all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been
promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The
specific elements of the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and
emissions analyses. The State's request does not involve a modification
of the 7.8 psi federal RVP requirement, which is separately applicable
by federal regulation (40 CFR 80.27) to both Jefferson and Shelby
Counties. Thus, EPA's proposed approval action considers the potential
impacts with regard to a difference in RVP requirements for the
Birmingham Area between the state-level requirement of 7.0 psi and the
federal-level requirement of 7.8 psi. EPA's analysis of Alabama's
January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision is provided below.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's submittal?

    ADEM submitted a draft revision to the Alabama SIP on January 10,
2012, for parallel processing. The purpose of Alabama's January 10,
2012, draft SIP revision is to move the state-level RVP requirement of
7.0 psi from the active measures portions of the SIP to the contingency
measures portions of the SIP. The applicable RVP requirement would then
be the federal 7.8 psi requirement and the 7.0 psi state-level
requirement would be a part of the maintenance plans as contingency
measures for the NAAQS discussed above. The State is not seeking a
change to the federal RVP requirements of 7.8 psi that are applicable
to the Birmingham Area.
    Alabama's January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision includes an
evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.0 psi state-level
RVP requirement would have on the applicable NAAQS. For the purposes of
this change, EPA is making the preliminary determination that the
applicable NAAQS\3\ of interest for the noninterference demonstration
required by section 110(l) of the CAA are the ozone, particulate matter
and nitrogen oxides (NO2) standards because the RVP
requirements results primarily in emissions benefits for VOCs and
NOX. VOCs and NOX emissions are precursors for
ozone and particulate matter, and NO2 is a component of
NOX. There are no emissions reductions attributable to the
emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), lead and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from RVP requirements. As a result, there is no
information indicating the proposed revision would have any impact on
those NAAQS. Additionally, the Birmingham Area is currently designated
attainment for the CO, lead and SO2 NAAQS, and is continuing
to attain these standards. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the
impact of Alabama's changes to the RVP requirements on the ozone,
particulate matter and NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The six NAAQS that EPA establishes health and welfare based
standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, particulate matter,
and SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions for Non-Interference Analyses for
Alabama's RVP Change

    In Alabama's January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision, the State
provided a technical demonstration to support the request to move
Alabama's 7.0 psi RVP requirement from the active measures portions of
the Alabama SIP to the contingency measures portions of the affected
maintenance plans. In that technical demonstration, Alabama provided
information regarding the emissions trends from the maintenance plans
for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. To determine these emissions,
Alabama took a conservative approach and assumed a high ozone season
RVP requirement for the Birmingham Area of 9.0 psi in the ozone
maintenance plan and 7.8 psi in the maintenance plans for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. All of these
maintenance plans, which included modeling, indicated future emissions
projections under the baseline ``attainment'' level emissions without
the emissions reductions associated with the state-level 7.0 psi RVP
requirements.
    In Alabama's January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision, ADEM also
provided an updated analysis utilizing the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) modeling to evaluate the potential impacts for the
ozone NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing the high ozone
season RVP requirements from the state-level requirement of 7.0 psi to
the federal requirement of 7.8 psi. Specifically, ADEM compared what
the projected emissions in the year 2012 (the year the program is
requested to be rescinded), would be, assuming a RVP level of 7.0 psi
and 7.8 psi. The comparison revealed a slight increase in emissions of
25 tons for NOX and 60 tons for VOC (cumulative over the
entire season) would result from the change to the federal requirement
from June 1st through September 15th. While the modeling showed a
slight increase in NOX and VOC emissions resulting from the
use of 7.8 psi RVP as opposed to 7.0 psi, the most appropriate analysis
for purposes of evaluating non-interference is whether total area
emissions in the future years would remain at or below the level
determined to be consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS. To provide
this full evaluation, the State compared emissions generated for the
year 2011, using a RVP of 7.0 psi to emissions generated for the years
2012 and 2015, using a RVP of 7.8 psi. Table 1 below provides the
results of this analysis.

            Table 1--Comparative Emissions for Change to RVP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2011 7.0   2012 7.8   2015 7.8
                                          psi RVP    psi RVP    psi RVP
                                           (tons)     (tons)     (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX....................................     * 6511     * 5819     * 4429
VOC....................................     * 2764     * 2593     * 2081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions are total from June 1 through September 15.

    As Table 1 clearly indicates, NOX and VOC emissions in
the Birmingham Area will continue to decrease, even with the increase
in high ozone season fuel RVP to 7.8 psi. The slight increase in
emissions is being mitigated area-wide by a steady decrease in tailpipe
emissions, which is the result of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing
the older fleet. As discussed below, based on this data, together with
air quality data, and maintenance demonstrations and attainment
designations for the NAAQS, EPA is making the preliminary determination
that the slight increase in NOX and VOC emissions resulting
from this change will not interfere with the Area's ability to attain
and maintain the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement. More
details on the individual non-interference analyses for the ozone,
PM2.5 and NO2 NAAQS are provided below.

b. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    Effective June 15, 2004, the Birmingham Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS. The primary precursors for ozone are VOCs and
NOX emissions. As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, the Birmingham Area was already subject to the federal RVP
requirements for high ozone season gasoline, and as mentioned above,
the State opted to implement a state-level RVP requirement for high
ozone season gasoline to aid the Area with compliance with the ozone
NAAQS. Although originally implemented for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
these federal and state RVP requirements continued to apply to the
Birmingham Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and are still
applicable for the Birmingham Area.
    On January 27, 2006, ADEM submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As part of the
State's ozone maintenance plan, Alabama took a conservative approach to
projecting its emissions inventories for the future projection years of
2009, 2015 and 2017 by assuming a level of 9.0 psi for RVP for high
ozone season gasoline in the Birmingham Area. The intent of this
conservative approach to developing the future projection year
emissions was to demonstrate that the Birmingham Area could maintain
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard without relying on the 7.0 psi state-
level requirement for RVP in high ozone season gasoline. ADEM used the
MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions model to estimate the emissions. In
the years 2015 and 2017, ADEM projected a reduction from the 2002 base
year inventory of approximately 45 percent in NOX emissions
(in tons per summer day). The projected reduction of VOC emissions (in
tons per summer day) for the years 2015 and 2017 is approximately a 20
percent from the 2002 base year emissions inventory.
    There is an overall downward trend in ozone concentration in the
Birmingham Area that can be attributed to regional and local programs/
controls enacted in the Birmingham Area that have led to significant
emissions reductions. On May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27631), EPA approved
Alabama's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham Area
and redesignated the Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Birmingham Area is continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS,\4\ and is meeting the new 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based on the 2008-2010 design value of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The
2008 ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 75 ppb or less.
Based on preliminary monitoring data from 2009-2011, the Birmingham
Area is continuing to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. More detail on
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentration. The level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met
when the design value is greater than 0.08 ppm (0.085 ppm rounds
up).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA established a more stringent 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb on
March 12, 2008. The Agency is currently in the process of determining
areas' compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and has not yet
completed the formal designation process. However, on December 9, 2011,
EPA announced its preliminary intention regarding designations for
nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA did not
indicate the Birmingham Area as a potential nonattainment area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As stated above, although the Agency has not
yet completed the designation process, EPA must still consider
compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA, therefore, evaluated
whether or not Alabama's requested change to its RVP requirements would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In doing so, EPA reviewed current monitoring data, which suggest
that the Birmingham Area appears to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The current design value for ozone for the Birmingham Area is
2008-2010 is 75ppb, while the preliminary 2009-2011 design value is 75
ppb for this Area. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC
and NOX precursor emissions, and whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the requested change to Alabama's high ozone season RVP
requirement (which would have the effect in the Area of reverting to
the federal RVP requirement for high ozone season fuel) would cause the
Area to be out of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In light of the current designations, monitoring data and the
submitted modeling, including the fact that the VOC and NOX
emissions inventories are projected to continue to significantly
decrease,\5\ EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's change to
its RVP requirements for the Birmingham Area will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Indeed, the future decreases in the inventory are an order
of magnitude greater than the increases associated with the change
in RVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Non-Interference Analysis for the Particulate Matter NAAQS

    Effective April 5, 2005, the Birmingham Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 Annual NAAQS. The primary
precursors for PM2.5 are NOX and sulfur oxides.
VOC and ammonia can be determined to be precursors to PM2.5
formation on a case-by-case basis. For the Birmingham Area, neither the
State of Alabama or EPA have made a determination that VOC and ammonia
are significant precursors to the formation of PM2.5 in the
Birmingham Area thus NOX and sulfur oxides are the
precursors of interests in addition to direct PM2.5
emissions. In 2005 ADEM and Jefferson County Department of Health
contracted with Envair to study the nature and potential causes of
PM2.5 concentrations in the Birmingham Area. The study
investigated the sources of particulate matter pollution in and around
the North Birmingham and Wylam monitors. The study gave insight into
the sources of particulate matter pollution in and around the North
Birmingham and Wylam monitors. According to the findings of the study,
sulfate and primary organic matter are the most important contributors
to PM2.5 in the Birmingham Area. The results of the study
indicate that the most effective control strategies to reduce
PM2.5 concentrations in the Birmingham area include the
reduction of regional and urban/local emissions of SO2. As
mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the RVP requirements result in
emissions benefits for VOC and NOX so EPA focused on these
precursors for the analysis of the potential impact of Alabama's SIP
change.
    On May 13, 2009, ADEM submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Annual standards. As
part of the State's 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan,
Alabama took a conservative approach for developing its emissions
inventory for the future projection years of 2009, 2015 and 2017 by
assuming a level of 7.8 psi for RVP for high ozone season gasoline in
the Birmingham Area. The intent of this conservative approach to
developing the future projection year emissions was to demonstrate that
the Birmingham Area could maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5
standard without relying on the 7.0 psi state-level requirement for RVP
in high ozone season gasoline. ADEM originally used the MOBILE6.2
mobile source emissions model to estimate the emissions but later
updated these emissions with the MOVES mobile source emissions model.
As discussed earlier the most effective

way to reduce PM2.5 concentrations in the Birmingham area is
to control SO2 emissions. The projected reduction of
SO2 emissions (in tons per day) for the years 2012, 2015,
2018, 2021 and 2024 is approximately 58 percent from the 2009 base year
emissions inventory. As Table 2 indicates the PM2.5 annual
design value has been decreasing. The overall downward trend in
PM2.5 concentration in the Birmingham area can be attributed
to regional and local programs/controls enacted in the Birmingham area
that have led to significant emission reductions.

                                       Table 2--PM2.5 Annual Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                      2005-2007          2006-2008          2007-2009          2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value *......................              18.7               17.3               15.1               13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The air quality design value for the PM2.5 1997 annual standard is 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
  m\3\).

On June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38023), EPA made a determination that the
Birmingham PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard and on November 10, 2011 (76 FR
70078), EPA proposed to approve Alabama's 1997 Annual PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Birmingham Area and redesignate the Area to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not
receive any comments on the proposed rulemaking to redesignate this
Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standards.
    On June 17, 2010, ADEM submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. As
part of the State's 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan,
Alabama took a conservative approach for developing its emissions
inventory for the future projection years of 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021 and
2024 by assuming a level of 7.8 psi for RVP for high ozone season
gasoline in the Birmingham Area. The intent of this conservative
approach to developing the future projection year emissions was to
demonstrate that the Birmingham Area could maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards without relying on the 7.0 psi state-level
requirement for RVP in high ozone season gasoline. ADEM used the MOVES
mobile source emissions model to estimate the emissions. As Table 3
indicates the PM2.5 24-hour design value has been
decreasing. The overall downward trend in PM2.5
concentration in the Birmingham Area can be attributed to regional and
local programs/controls enacted in the Birmingham Area that have led to
significant emission reductions.

                                      Table 3--PM2.5 24-Hour Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                      2005-2007          2006-2008          2007-2009          2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value........................                44                 39                 34                 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 20, 2010 (75 FR 57186), EPA made a determination that the
Birmingham PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard and on November 10, 2011 (76 FR
70091), EPA proposed to approve Alabama's 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Birmingham Area and redesignate the Area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. EPA did not
receive any comments on the proposed rulemaking to redesignate this
Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In light of the proposed designation, monitoring data and the
submitted modeling, including the fact that the VOC and NOX
emissions inventories are projected to continue to significantly
decrease, EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's change to its
RVP requirements for the Birmingham Area will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 annual or the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.

d. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On January 20, 2012, EPA finalized designations for 2010
NO2 NAAQS. Alabama was designated unclassifiable/attainment,
including the Birmingham Area, for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Also,
EPA evaluated the potential increase in the NOX emissions
(approximately a quarter of a ton per day between June 1st and
September 15th) and whether it is reasonable to believe that Alabama's
change for its high ozone season RVP requirement (which has the effect
of reverting the Area to the federal RVP requirement for high ozone
season fuel) would cause the Area to be out of compliance with the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. The slight increase in NOX emissions
is being mitigated by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions, which is
the result of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the older fleet. In
light of the current designation, monitoring data and the submitted
modeling, including the fact that NOX emissions inventories
are projected to continue to significantly decrease, EPA has
preliminarily determined that Alabama's change to its RVP requirements
for the Birmingham Area will not interfere with the continued decline
in NOX emissions, nor with attainment or maintenance of the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's January 10, 2012, SIP
revision regarding the State's regulation at Chapter 335-3-20 ``Control
of Fuels'' which identifies Alabama's 7.0 psi requirement for the low-
RVP fuel program in the Birmingham Area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby
Counties). Specifically, Alabama's January 10, 2012, proposed SIP
revision moves the State's 7.0 psi requirement for low-RVP fuel program
in the Birmingham Area from the active measures portion to the
contingency measures portions of the maintenance plans for ozone
standards, the annual 1997 PM2.5 standard and the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. This action, if finalized, would result
in applicability of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for the
Birmingham Area.

VI. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-5266 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 20062]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1471-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: ACT
Commodities, Inc.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
ACT Commodities, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 21, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09616 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P