[Federal Register: September 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 45660-45662]
[DOCID:fr03se09-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28892]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

August 28, 2009.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
August, 2009. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each application will be
issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on September 22, 2009, and should be accompanied
by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or,
for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state
the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and
the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may
request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

Dreman Claymore Global Dividend & Income Fund [File No. 811-21557]
Fiduciary/Claymore Energy & Infrastructure Fund [File No. 811-21810]
Claymore/Zacks Quantitative Growth & Income Fund [File No. 811-21925]
Claymore/Voyageur Income & Opportunities Fund [File No. 811-22076]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants have never made a public offering of their securities and do
not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any
kind.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on June 10, 2009, and
amended on August 14, 2009.

    Applicants' Address: 2455 Corporate West Dr., Lisle, IL 60532.

Keystone High Income Bond Fund B-4 [File No. 811-95]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen High Yield Bond Fund, a series of
Evergreen Fixed Income Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 12, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., 26th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

Keystone Growth & Income Fund S-1 [File No. 811-98]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Blue Chip Fund, a series of
Evergreen Equity Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 12, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., 26th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

Keystone Government Securities Fund [File No. 811-4949]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about July 31, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen U.S. Government Fund, a series of
Evergreen Investment Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred
in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 5, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Eaton Vance Insured Florida Plus Municipal Bond Fund [File No. 811-
21222]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December
15, 2008, applicant transferred its assets to Eaton Vance Insured
Municipal Bond Fund, based on net asset value. Applicant's auction
preferred shares were redeemed prior to the reorganization. Expenses of
$212,904 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 24, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: Two International Place, Boston, MA 02110.

Pioneer Interest Shares [File No. 811-2239]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October
19, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to Pioneer Bond Fund, based
on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $190,894 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant and Pioneer
Investment Management, Inc., applicant's investments adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 27, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 60 State St., Boston, MA 02109.

Keystone Fund for Total Return [File No. 811-4950]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Keystone Fund for Total Return, a series of
Evergreen Equity Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 30, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Institutional Trust [File No. 811-7441]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Select Small Cap Growth Fund, a
series of Evergreen Select Equity Trust, based on net asset value.
Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 13, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., 26th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

Keystone Global Opportunities Fund [File No. 811-5404]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about January 13, 1998, applicant
transferred its assets to Keystone Global Opportunities Fund, a series
of Evergreen International Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 4, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Allstate Financial Investment Trust [File No. 811-22165]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 30, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $4,500 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by Allstate Investment Advisors, LLC, applicant's investment
adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 13, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 3100 Sanders Rd., Suite J5B, Northbrook, IL
60062-7154.

Keystone Institutional Adjustable Rate Fund [File No. 811-6412]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Select Adjustable Rate Fund, a
series of Evergreen Select Fixed Income Trust, based on net asset
value. Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization were
paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 13, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., 26th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

RMR F.I.R.E. Fund [File No. 811-21616]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 18,
2009, applicant transferred its assets to RMR Real Estate Income Fund,
based on net asset value. Each holder of applicant's preferred shares
received preferred shares of RMR Real Estate Income Fund having an
aggregate liquidation preference equal to the aggregate liquidation
preference attributable to applicant's preferred shares. Expenses of
$141,011 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 19, 2009, and
amended on August 12, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 400 Centre St., Newton, MA 02458.

RMR Preferred Dividend Fund [File No. 811-21671]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 23,
2009,

applicant transferred its assets to RMR Real Estate Income Fund, based
on net asset value. Each holder of applicant's preferred shares
received preferred shares of RMR Real Estate Income Fund having an
aggregate liquidation preference equal to the aggregate liquidation
preference attributable to applicant's preferred shares. Expenses of
$202,707 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 24, 2009, and
amended on August 10, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 400 Centre St., Newton, MA 02458.

RMR Dividend Capture Fund [File No. 811-22079]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 22,
2009, applicant transferred its assets to RMR Real Estate Income Fund,
based on net asset value. Each holder of applicant's preferred shares
received preferred shares of RMR Real Estate Income Fund having an
aggregate liquidation preference equal to the aggregate liquidation
preference attributable to applicant's preferred shares. Expenses of
$128,701 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 23, 2009, and
amended on August 10, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 400 Centre St., Newton, MA 02458.

Morgan Stanley Total Market Index Fund [File No. 811-9259]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On July 25, 2008, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $78,565 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, Inc., applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 6, 2009, and
amended on August 7, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.,
522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036.

BNY Hamilton Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-6654]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On September 12, 2008, applicant transferred
the assets from all of its series, except BNY Hamilton Multi-Cap Equity
Fund and BNY Hamilton Municipal Enhanced Yield Fund (the ``remaining
series''), to corresponding series of BNY Mellon Funds Trust, Dreyfus
Institutional Reserves Funds, Dreyfus/Laurel Funds, Inc., Dreyfus/
Laurel Funds Trust, Dreyfus Premier Investment Funds, Inc. and Dreyfus
Tax Exempt Cash Management Funds, based on net asset value. On November
10, 2008, applicant's remaining series transferred their assets to
Managers AMG Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of $2,772,500
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by The Bank of
New York Mellon, applicant's administrator.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 14, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 3435 Stelzer Rd., Columbus, OH 43219-3035.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21221 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14807-14808]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-88]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0240; FRL-8293-8]

A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change
on the Costs of Implementing Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits at
Publicly Owned Treatment Works in the Great Lakes Region

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft
document titled, ``A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of
Climate Change on the Costs of Implementing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits at Publicly-Owned Treatment Works in the Great Lakes
Region'' (EPA/600/R-07/034A). The document was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments
submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins March 29, 2007, and ends
April 28, 2007. Technical comments should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by April 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts
of Climate Change on the Costs of Implementing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits at Publicly-Owned Treatment Works in the Great Lakes
Region'' is available primarily via the Internet on NCEA's home page
under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available

from NCEA's Technical Information Staff (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>). If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, your mailing address, and the document title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov
, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/

courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information, contact Thomas Johnson, NCEA; telephone:
202-564-3406; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    This report describes the potential scope and magnitude of climate
change impacts on the cost of meeting water quality based effluent
limits at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) discharging to rivers
and streams in the Great Lakes Region (GLR). The report is a screening
level analysis focusing on costs of meeting water quality based
effluent limits for a single pollutant, biochemical oxygen demand at
all POTWs in the region discharging to currently impaired stream
reaches. POTWs discharge billions of gallons of effluent daily to
receiving water bodies throughout the United States. One of the
principal pollutants associated with POTW effluent is organic matter.
Naturally, occurring microbial populations in receiving waters consume
dissolved oxygen (DO) as they decompose organic matter. Low DO is a
significant source of water quality impairment. Climate change in many
parts of the country is expected to increase the proportion of rainfall

occurring in high-intensity events, resulting in increased stormwater
runoff. At the same time, a shift towards more intense storms is
expected to decrease infiltration and groundwater recharge, resulting
in reduced low-flow periods between events. Increased air temperatures
and evapotranspiration could also result in reduced streamflow between
rainfall events. Reduced low-flow events in receiving waters could
result in increased water quality impairment below POTWs due to reduced
dilution of effluent.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0240 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is
202-566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0240 Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail 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: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the

EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
David Bussard,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E7-5798 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16798-16801]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91409; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List To Extend the Waiver of Equipment and Related
Service Charges and Trading License Fees for NYSE Trading Floor-Based
Member Organizations

March 25, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 17, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver
of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for
NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations through the earlier of
the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor
facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective April 1, 2021. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver
of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for
NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations through the earlier of
the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor
facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021.
    As proposed, the Exchange would continue to waive 50% of the
Telephone System charges and Service Charges (except for the internet
Equipment Monthly Hosting Fee) and trading license fees for member
organizations that meet the waiver criteria set forth in footnotes 11
and 15 of the Price List, respectively, commencing January 1, 2021
through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the
Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective April
1, 2021.
Background
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    Beginning in March 2020 and continuing into 2021, in order to slow
the spread of the novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') through social
distancing measures, significant limitations were placed on large
gatherings throughout the country. As a result, on March 18, 2020, the
Exchange determined that beginning March 23, 2020, the physical Trading
Floor facilities located at 11 Wall Street in New York City would close
and that the Exchange would move, on a temporary basis, to fully
electronic trading.\4\ Following the temporary closure of the Trading
Floor, the Exchange waived certain equipment fees for the booth
telephone system on the Trading Floor and associated service charges
for the months of April and May.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Press Release, dated March 18, 2020, available here:
https://ir.theice.com/press/press-releases/allcategories/2020/03-18-2020-204202110.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88602 (April 8,
2020), 85 FR 20730 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-27); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88874 (May 14, 2020), 85 FR 30743 (May 20,
2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-29). See footnote 11 of the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2020, the Exchange announced that on May 26, 2020
trading operations on the Trading Floor would resume on a limited basis
to a subset of Floor brokers, subject to health and safety measures
designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.\6\ On June 15, 2020, the
Exchange announced that on June 17, 2020, the Trading Floor would
reintroduce a subset of DMMs, also subject to health and safety
measures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.\7\ Following this
partial reopening of the Trading Floor, the Exchange extended the
equipment fee waiver for the months of June 2020 through March 2021.\8\
The Trading Floor continues to operate with reduced headcount and
additional health and safety precautions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Trader Update, dated May 14, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/traderupdate/history#110000251588.
    \7\ See Trader Update, dated June 15, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000272018.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89050 (June 11,
2020), 85 FR 36637 (June 17, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-49); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 89324 (July 15, 2020), 85 FR 44129 (July
21, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-59); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
89754 (September 2, 2020), 85 FR 55550 (September 8, 2020) (SR-NYSE-
2020-71); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89798 (September 9,
2020), 85 FR 57263 (September 15, 2020) (SR-NYSE2020-72); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 90161 (October 13, 2020), 85 FR 66370
(October 19, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-81); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90391 (November 10, 2020), 85 FR 73326 (November 17,
2020) (SR-NYSE2020-92); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90744
(December 21, 2020), 85 FR 85712 (December 29, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-
102); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91082 (February 9, 2021),
86 FR 9546 (February 16, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-10).
    \9\ See Trader Update, dated June 15, 2020, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000272018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    In response to the unprecedented events surrounding the spread of
COVID-19 in 2020, the Exchange waived certain equipment and related
service charges and trading license fees for NYSE Trading Floor-based
member organizations through March 2021. Specifically, the Exchange
extended the waiver of 50% of the Annual Telephone Line Charge of $400
per phone number; the $129 fee for a single line phone, jack, and data
jack; the related service charges ($161.25 to install single jack
(voice or data); $107.50 to relocate a jack; $53.75 to remove a jack;
$107.50 to install voice or data line; $53.75 to disconnect data line;
$53.75 to change a phone line subscriber; and miscellaneous telephone
charges billed at $106 per hour in 15 minute increments); and the
monthly portion of all applicable annual fees through March 2021 for
member organizations that

     meet the current requirements of having at least one
trading license, a physical trading Floor presence and Floor broker
executions accounting for 40% or more of the member organization's
combined adding, taking, and auction volumes during March 1 to March
20, 2020 or, if not a member organization during March 1 to March 20,
2020, based on the member organization's combined adding, taking, and
auction volumes during its first month as a member organization on or
after May 26, 2020, and
     are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020
on-Floor staffing levels or, for member organizations that began Floor
operations after March 2020, are unable to operate at more than 50% of
their Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels, both excluding part-
time Floor brokers known as ``flex brokers'' (hereinafter, ``Qualifying
Firms'').
    Because the Trading Floor continues to operate with reduced
capacity, and in order to further reduce costs for member organizations
with a Trading Floor presence, the Exchange proposes to extend the fee
waiver for Qualifying Firms through the earlier of the first full month
of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel
or June 2021. The proposed fee change is designed to reduce monthly
costs for all Qualifying Firms whose operations continue to be
disrupted even though the Trading Floor has partially reopened. The
Exchange does not propose any substantive changes to the current waiver
requirements set forth in footnotes 11 and 15 of the Price List. The
Exchange believes that all Qualifying Firms would benefit from the
proposed fee change.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that
market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \13\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\14\ 31 alternative trading systems,\15\ and numerous
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly available information, no single exchange has
more than 16% market share.\16\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tape A, B and C
securities combined is less than 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \15\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \16\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change is Reasonable
    The proposed extension of the waiver of equipment and related
service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee for
Qualified Firms through the earlier of the first full month of a full
reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June
2021 is reasonable in light of the continued partial closure of the
NYSE Trading Floor as a result of spread of COVID-19. The proposed
change is reasonable because it would extend reduction of monthly costs
for all Qualifying Firms whose operations have been disrupted despite
the fact that the Trading Floor has partially reopened because of the
social distancing requirements and/or other health concerns related to
resuming operation on the Trading Floor. In reducing this monthly
financial burden, the proposed change would allow Qualifying Firms that
that are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 or
Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels to reallocate funds to
assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-
staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor and recoup losses resulting
from the partial reopening of the Trading Floor.
The Proposal is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed extension of the waiver of
equipment and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading
license fee for Qualified Members for the proposed time period is an
equitable allocation of fees. The proposed waivers apply to all Trading
Floor-based firms meeting specific requirements during the specified
period that the Trading Floor remains partially open. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its
fees and credits as it continues the previous fee waiver for Qualifying
Firms, which affects fees charged only to Floor participants and does
not apply to participants that conduct business off-Floor. The Exchange
believes it is an equitable allocation of fees and credits to extend
the fee waiver for Qualifying Firms because such firms have no more
than half of their Floor staff (as measured by either the March 2020 or
Exchange-approved) levels, and this reduction in staffing levels on the
Trading Floor impacts the speed, volume and efficiency with which these
firms can operate, to their financial detriment.
The Proposal is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed continuation of the fee waiver
would affect all similarly situated market participants on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange is not proposing to waive the
Trading Floor-related fees indefinitely, but rather during the
specified period during which the Trading Floor is not fully open. As
noted, the proposed fee

change is designed to ease the financial burden on Trading Floor-based
member organizations that cannot fully conduct Floor operations.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for member organizations. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation
NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \18\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed continued waiver of equipment
and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee
for Qualified Firms is designed to reduce monthly costs for those Floor
participants whose operations continue to be impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic despite the fact that the Trading Floor has partially
reopened. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the proposed
change would allow Qualifying Firms that had Floor operations in March
2020 to reallocate funds to assist with the cost of shifting and
maintaining their previously on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent
this change, all Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase
in the cost of doing business on the Exchange, given that the Trading
Floor has only reopened in a limited capacity. The Exchange believes
that the proposed waiver of fees for Qualifying Firms would not impose
a disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange because off-Floor market participants are not subject to these
Floor-based fixed fees. In addition, Floor-based firms that are not
subject to the extent of staffing shortfalls as are Qualifying Firms,
i.e., firms that have more than 50% of their March 2020, or Exchange-
approved staffing levels on the Trading Floor, do not face the same
operational level of disruption and potential financial impact during
the partial reopening of the Trading Floor. As noted, the proposal
would apply to all similarly situated member organizations on the same
and equal terms, who would benefit from the changes on the same basis.
Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it permits impacted member
organizations to continue to conduct market-making operations on the
Exchange and avoid unintended costs of doing business on the Exchange
while the Trading Floor is not fully open, which could make the
Exchange a less competitive venue on which to trade as compared to
other equities markets. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the
proposed change would allow affected participants to reallocate funds
to assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully
staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent this change,
Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase in the cost of
doing business on the Exchange, which would make the Exchange a less
competitive venue on which to trade as compared to other options
exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2021-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-19. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.

Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-19 and should be
submitted on or before April 21, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06558 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Fishing Licenses ( fish_ lic. sd2)

County level fishing license data for fresh and saltwater anglers in the United States.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23969]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of the Estate Vault, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

April 19, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
The Estate Vault, Inc. (``Estate Vault'') because it has not filed a
periodic report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the period ending
February 28, 2009, filed on December 24, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Estate Vault. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to
Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in
the securities of Estate Vault is suspended for the period from 9:30
a.m. EDT on April 19, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 2, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09638 Filed 4-19-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37900-37901]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15369]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0262; FRL-9519-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces

that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is
a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is
abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the
estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0262, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0262, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted either electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2042.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0519.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
BBBBB.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 19
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are the owners or operators of semiconductor manufacturing
plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 37.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3,576, which includes $3,526 in labor
costs, no capital/startup costs, and $50 in operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in labor hours in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:
(1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and they
are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the
growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or nonexistent, so
there is no significant change in the overall burden.
    There is an increase in respondent and Agency costs resulting from
labor rate increases since the last renewal. This ICR uses updated
labor rates from the most recently available data for each of the three
labor categories.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-15369 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28799-28800]
[DOCID:fr24my10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-446-002.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline Company, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 5.02 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 6/1/10.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-666-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Submission of Corrected Tariff Records to be
effective 5/7/2010.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100507-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-690-001.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Fifth Revised Sheet 8
et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 6/1/10.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-492-001; RP03-162-015.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC submits the Third
Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100510-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 24, 2010.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR

385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be
filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the
parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12394 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1Section 182( b)( 3) specifies that EPA would approve any request from a State to reclassify to a higher classification. Technical Support Document for Lancaster, Pennsylvania September 2004 1.0 Summary The EPA designated this area as moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8 hour ozone values ( design value is 92 ppb). On July 9, 2004 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection submitted a request to reclassify Lancaster County from moderate to marginal ozone nonattainment.

2.0 Introduction This section describes the statutory provisions and EPA guidance regarding reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 181( a)( 4) and 182( b)( 3) of the Clean Air Act provide that areas may be reclassified under certain circumstances. This technical support document addresses the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) and a specific request for reclassifications received by the State of Indiana. The EPA has not received any requests for reclassification under section 182( b)( 3) for the 8 hour ozone standard. 1 Under section 181( a)( 4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified " if an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based." In the April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that an area with a moderate design value of 96 ppb ( or less) would be eligible to request a bump down because five percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a marginal design value.

The EPA previously described criteria to implement the section 181( a)( 4) provisions in a final rule designating and classifying areas published on November 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 56698). As stated in that notice, the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) set out general criteria and grant the Administrator broad discretion in making or determining not to make, a reclassification. As part of the 1991 action, EPA developed more specific criteria to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reclassify a particular area. The EPA also described these criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. The general and specific criteria are as follows:

General: The EPA may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Request by State: The EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to bump down areas on EPA's own initiative. Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State to submit a request for a bump down. A Tribe may also submit such a request and, in the case of a multi state nonattainment area, all affected States must submit the reclassification request.

Discontinuity: A five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas. In particular, in light of the areawide nature of ozone formation, a reclassification should not create a " donut hole" where an area of one classification is surrounded by areas of higher classification.

Attainment: Evidence should be available that the proposed area would be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification in the case of a bump down.

Emissions reductions: Evidence should be available that the area would be very likely to achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary in order to attain in the shorter time period for a bump down.

Trends: Near and long term trends in emissions and air quality should support a reclassification. Historical air quality data should indicate substantial air quality improvement for a bump down. Growth projections and emission trends should support a bump down. In addition, we will consider whether vehicle miles traveled and other indicators of emissions are increasing at higher than normal rates.

Years of data: For the 8 hour ozone standard, the 2001 2003 period is central to determining classification. Data from 2004 may be used to corroborate a bump down request but should not be the sole foundation for the bump down request.

Limitations on Bump Downs An area may only be reclassified to the next lower classification. An area cannot present data from other years as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification. In addition, section 181( a)( 4) does not permit moving areas from subpart 2 into subpart 1. In 1991, EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement ( a request by the State to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria and did not violate any of the criteria ( emissions, reductions, trends, etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on designations and classifications, we stated our intention to use this method and these criteria once again to evaluate reclassification requests under section 181( a)( 4), with minor changes described in that notice. In that notice we also described how we applied these criteria in 1991. For additional information, see section 5, " Areas requesting a 5% downshift per § 181( a)( 4) and EPA's response to those requests," of the Technical Support Document, October 1991, for the 1991 rule. [ Docket A 90 42A.]

The EPA is not basing this reclassification determination on consideration of whether the nonattainment area being reclassified does or does not cause any pollution transport. The EPA is presently addressing ozone pollution transport issues throughout the eastern part of the United States under other Clean Air Act provisions. Specifically, EPA has proposed a determination that emissions from certain states contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment for ozone under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D) through the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The CAIR proposal, published in a Federal Register notice dated January 30, 2004, would require upwind States to eliminate emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States. 69 Fed. Reg. 454566. The EPA previously issued the NOx SIP call ( 63 FR 57356) to address interstate ozone transport. In the event of any intrastate transport issue, states have the obligation to develop attainment SIPs for each area that show timely attainment, and can address any intrastate transport issues in that context.

The April 30, 2004 notice invited States to submit the reclassification requests within 30 days of the effective date of the designations and classifications. The effective date was June 15 which means that reclassification requests were to be submitted by July 15, 2004. This relatively short time frame is necessary because section 181( a)( 4) only authorizes the Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification, September 15, 2004.

3.0 Background Lancaster, PA was designated moderate nonattainment under the 8 hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Lancaster's design value is 92 ppb.

4.0 Reclassification Request by State The State's request is based on a comparison of Lancaster County, " marginal" nonattainment areas and other nonattainment areas within Pennsylvania. The comparison addresses: 1 hr and 8 hr design values, 8 hr ozone exceedances, 1999 NEI NOx and VOC emissions, 2000 Census population figures, an analysis of potential transport into and out of Lancaster County, an analysis of regional nonattainment designations, and an analysis of EPA's NOx SIP Call Modeling.

5.0 EPA Review of Reclassification Request 5.1 Request by State On July 9, 2004, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection submitted a request to EPA to bump down Lancaster, PA moderate ozone nonattainment area from " moderate" to " marginal."

5.2 Discontinuity Lancaster, PA is a single county 8 hour ozone nonattainment area located immediately west of the Philadelphia moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment area and immediately north of the Baltimore moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment area. The counties adjacent to and surrounding Lancaster on its west and north are designated subpart 1 (" basic") 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. Reclassification of Lancaster County will not create a discontinuity since there would be no area of one classification surrounded by areas of a higher classification.

5.3 Attainment Pennsylvania's submittal included the use of EPA's NOx State Implementation Plan ( SIP) call regional modeling analyses to demonstrate that Lancaster, PA can attain by the 2007 marginal classification attainment date rather than by the 2010 moderate classification attainment date. Pennsylvania correctly obtained the appropriate RRF from the NOx SIP call modeling ( 1996 base year and 2007 projection) but then incorrectly multiplied it with the 2003 ozone design value for Lancaster. However, applying the NOx SIP call RRF to the greater of the 1997 ozone design value or the 2003 ozone design value produced 83.6 ppb. Because the CAIR regional modeling uses more up to date data and methodologies than the NOx SIP Call modeling, EPA is not relying on the NOx SIP Call modeling for purposes of the bump down.

The EPA's January 2004 CAIR modeling projects attainment for Lancaster County, MD in the 2010 attainment year ( 83 ppb). No local air quality modeling is available. The EPA believes the CAIR modeling analysis is not conclusive with respect to Lancaster's attainment status in 2007. The analysis is not as comprehensive an assessment as would be expected with a SIP attainment demonstration. However the CAIR analysis provides support for a decision to reclassify the area since it indicates air quality will be improving over the next several years.

5.4 Emission Reductions The emissions trend is expected to decrease due to the implementation of various regional rules, including the NOx SIP Call and rules contained in 1 hour ozone attainment plans in the Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington D. C. areas. In addition, because the state of Pennsylvania is located in the statutorilyestablished Ozone Transport Region ( OTR), Lancaster County has been implementing moderate nonattainment area level emission controls. Moderate area OTR controls include RACT, NSR, and Stage II comparable measures. Further, Lancaster has an OTR enhanced I/ M program that became state law in November 2003 and has been implemented since February 2004. On August 23, 2004, PA submitted a list of emission control measures effective in Lancaster, PA. This list includes federal and state measures such as autobody refinishing, solvent cleaning, consumer products, portable fuel container requirements and enhanced I/ M.

5.5 Trends The area's design value is 92 ppb, just one ppb above the marginal classification design value based on 2001  2003 data. The 17 year ozone air quality trends in Lancaster County are relatively flat. The short term trend in the 4th highest 8 hour ozone value over the last 3 years is downward ( 97, 96, and 83 ppb). Further, it can be expected that ozone values will decline due to the implementation of national and regional rules relative to ozone levels in recent years.

Population growth ( from 1990 to 2001) in Lancaster, PA, relative to other Region III counties is moderate while VMT growth in Lancaster ( also relative to other Region III counties) is relatively high.

5.6 Years of Data Pennsylvania has appropriately evaluated Lancaster based on the 2003 ozone design value, which uses ozone data from 2001, 2002 and 2003. The 2003 ozone design value for Lancaster, PA is 92 ppb.

5.7 Additional Information On August 23, 2004, Pennsylvania submitted some additional modeling information generated using a PC based CALGRID developed for the Ozone Transport Commission. This modeling showed that the ozone contribution from Lancaster, PA is not significant when compared to the ozone transport contribution from the entire state of Pennsylvania and that contributions from Lancaster are generally to areas within Pennsylvania. This is supported by the relatively small VOC and NOx emissions of Lancaster, PA when compared with the total VOC and NOx emissions of Pennsylvania ( 4% VOC emissions and 3% NOx emissions).

5.8 Conclusions The following factors support the request for reclassification to marginal for Lancaster County: the design value of 92 ppb meets our criteria to qualify for consideration of bump down, CAIR modeling indicates air quality will be improving over the next several years, and additional reductions from regional and national regulations should lower ambient ozone values.

5.9 EPA Action The request meets certain criteria EPA established ( request, discontinuity, emission reductions, and data) and does not violate any of the criteria ( attainment and trends). Therefore, EPA is approving the reclassification request for Lancaster County.

6.0 Additional Information Additional information regarding the bump down request for this area is contained in the docket for this action. This information includes the State request, supporting documents, and other necessary material.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43187-43191]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14576]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283; FRL-10011-69-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the
2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion for approval
consists of negative declarations for certain specified Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG), including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG
(2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as well as a number of other negative
declarations for Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs) for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The negative
declarations cover only those CTGs or ACTs for which there are no
sources subject to those CTGs or ACTs located in the Northern Virginia
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Control Area. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0283 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission

methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Trouba can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 2020, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a SIP revision certifying that
it has met all of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements set forth in CAA section 182(b)(2) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area. This action
proposes approval of only the negative declarations contained in
section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020 SIP submission. The remaining portion
of the SIP submission, which addresses the RACT requirements in CAA
section 182(b)(2)(C) applicable to the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions
Control Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, will be addressed in a future
action. Also, VADEQ previously submitted a 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT
certification SIP revision on December 12, 2017. EPA is not, at this
time, proposing to take action on the earlier 2017 submission.

I. Background

    The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
VOCs to prevent photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation.
RACT is a strategy for reducing NOx and VOC emissions from
stationary sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS. EPA has
consistently defined ``RACT'' as the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment
areas must include RACT, including RACT for existing sources of
emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that for areas
designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS and classified as moderate,
states must revise their SIP to include provisions to implement RACT
for each category of VOC sources covered by a CTG document issued
between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment. Section
182(b)(2)(B) requires the same for CTGs issued before November 15,
1990. CAA section 182(c) through (e) applies this requirement to states
with areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS classified as
serious, severe, and extreme. The CAA also imposes the same requirement
on states in Ozone Transport Regions (OTR). Specifically, CAA section
184(b) provides that states in an OTR must revise their SIP to
implement RACT with respect to all sources of VOC in the OTR covered by
a CTG document issued before or after November 15, 1990, even for areas
designated attainment within the OTR. CAA section 184(a) establishes a
single OTR comprised of 11 eastern states and the Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) that includes the District of
Columbia. See 81 FR 74798 (October 27, 2016). Portions of Northern
Virginia are in the CMSA and therefore the OTR. The Virginia portion of
the OTR includes the following areas: Arlington County, Fairfax County,
Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria
City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park
City. Collectively, these areas will be referred to as the ``Northern
Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area'' or the ``Northern Virginia
area.'' \1\ Finally, section 182(f) requires that plan provisions
required under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, which
includes sections 182 through 184, for major sources of VOC shall also
apply to major stationary sources of NOx in ozone
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The following areas in the Commonwealth of Virginia were
designated as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: The
counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William and the
Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park. See 40 CFR 81.347. On April 4, 2019 (84 FR 15108) the Maryland
and Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area
were redesignated to attainment of that standard. These areas, in
addition to Stafford County, are in the OTR and therefore must still
meet the requirements certifying implementation of 2008 ozone RACT,
despite the redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTGs and ACTs form important components of the guidance that EPA
provides to states for making RACT determinations. CTGs are used to
presumptively define VOC RACT for applicable source categories. ACTs
describe an available range of control technologies and their
respective cost effectiveness, but do not identify any particular
option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT.\2\ ACTs are not
legally binding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A complete list of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs with links to
each CTG or ACT can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA issued a final rule entitled
``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule). In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes
clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source
category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR,
the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR 12264,
12278.
    On October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74798), EPA published in the Federal
Register the ``Release of Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the
Oil and Natural Gas Industry.'' This 2016 Oil and Gas CTG provided
information to state, local, and tribal air agencies to assist in
determining RACT for VOC emissions from select oil and natural gas
industry emission sources. The 2016 Oil and Gas CTG replaces an earlier
1983 CTG entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment
Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. December 1983.''
EPA-450/3-83-007 (1983 CTG) 49 FR 4432; February 6, 1984. 2016 Oil and
Gas CTG, p. 8-1.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On April 2, 2020, VADEQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA certifying
that the Northern Virginia area has met all of the CAA section
182(b)(2) RACT implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
However, this proposal only addresses section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020
submittal, which contains negative declarations for certain CTGs and
ACTs in the Northern Virginia area, as described in this proposed
rulemaking.

A. Recertification of Prior Negative Declarations for VOC Sources
Subject to Certain CTGs and ACTs Located in the Northern Virginia Area

    Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP submittal, identifies source
categories subject to CTGs and ACTs, for which Virginia is submitting a
negative declaration that there are no sources located in the Northern
Virginia area subject to the terms of these CTGs or ACTs, for purposes
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. VADEQ used several methods to determine
whether there were any

sources subject to CTGs or ACTs in the Northern Virginia area. First,
VADEQ reviewed the Comprehensive Environmental Data System (CEDS),
which is the air regulatory registration database for the jurisdictions
comprising the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (i.e., the
Northern Virginia area). As explained in the SIP submission, facilities
must register in this database all units subject to any applicable
regulation in the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air
Pollution, any facilities with the potential to emit (PTE) at least 25
tons per year (tpy) of VOC or 40 tpy of NOX, and any
facility making a change with a PTE of at least 10 tpy VOC or
NOX. The CEDS also has registration and reporting
requirements for facilities emitting much lower levels of VOC. For
example, miscellaneous metal parts facilities must register if they
emit 2.7 tpy or 15 pounds per day of VOC.
    Virginia also used the Virginia Employment Database to identify
small, mid-sized, and large sources in the affected area that may not
be registered in CEDS. Using these databases, Virginia developed the
list of CTGs and ACTs set forth in Table 3 of its submittal that it
believes do not have sources located in the Northern Virginia area.
Table 1 of this proposed rulemaking lists those CTGs and ACTs for which
Virginia is submitting a negative declaration that no sources subject
to the applicability requirements of these CTGs and ACTs are found in
the Northern Virginia area. Table 1 also lists the CTGs and ACTs for
which VADEQ is recertifying prior negative declarations or submitting
new negative declarations.

      Table 1--Negative Declarations for the Northern Virginia Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Document title.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
 Equipment, June 1978. EPA-450/2-78-036.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry
 Cleaners, September 1982. EPA-450/3-82-009.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High
 Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins, November
 1983. EPA-450/3-83-008.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
 Gasoline Processing Plants, December 1983. EPA-450/2-83-007.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
 Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment, March 1984.
 EPA-450/3-83-006.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation
 Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry,
 December 1984. EPA-450/3-84-015.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation
 and Reactor Processes CTG, August 1993. EPA 450/4-91-031.
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (CTG-MACT)--draft MACT out 5-94;
 final CTG, April 1996. CTG: EPA-453/R-96-007.
Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities
 ACT (April 1994) and CTG, August 27, 1996. EPA 453/R-94-032 (ACT).
Aerospace (CTG & MACT), December 1997. EPA 453/R-97-004 CTG.
Control Techniques for Organic Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers, May
 1983, ACT. EPA 450/3-83-012.
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization ACT, March 1989. EPA 450/3-89-007.
ACT Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing, 1990. EPA 450/3-90-020.
ACT Document--Organic Waste Process Vents, December 1990. EPA 450/3-91-
 007.
Bakery Ovens ACT, December 1992. EPA 453/R-92-017.
ACT Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
 Stationary Sources, December 1992. EPA 453/R-92-018.
ACT Industrial Wastewater, September 1992 & April 1994. EPA 453/D-93-
 056.
Control of VOC Emissions from the Application of Agricultural
 Pesticides, March 1993. EPA 450/R-92-011.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Batch Processes ACT,
 February 1994. EPA 453/R-93-017.
ACT Business Machine Plastic Parts coating/Automobile Plastic Parts
 Coating, February 1994. EPA 453/R-94-017.
ACT NOX Emissions from Nitric and Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants,
 December 1991. EPA453/3-91-026.
NOX Emissions from Cement Manufacturing, March 1994 Updated September
 2000. EPA 453/R-94-004.
NOX Emissions from Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers, March
 1994. EPA 453/R-94-022.
NOX Emissions from Glass Manufacturing, June 1994. EPA 453/R-94-037.
NOX Emissions from Iron and Steel, September 1994. EPA 453/R-94-065.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing, September
 2006. EPA 453/R-6-003.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, September
 2006. EPA 453/R-06-004.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,
 September 2007. EPA 453/R-07-003.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings, September
 2009. EPA 453/R-07-004.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings, September
 2007. EPA 453/R-07-005.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
 Materials, September 2008. EPA 453/R-08-004.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
 Assembly Coatings, September 2008. EPA 453/R-08-006.
Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission
 Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck Primer-Surface and Topcoat
 Operations, September 2009. EPA 453/R-08-002.
Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,
 October 2016. EPA 453/B-16-001
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. New Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG

    As noted in section I of the preamble for this proposed rulemaking,
EPA adopted a revised CTG for the Oil and Gas Industry in October of
2016. Because this is a newer CTG, previous negative declarations
submitted by Virginia for the 1997 ozone NAAQS did not address the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG. Therefore, section 2.2 of the submittal includes a
first-time negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.\3\ A
brief explanation of the scope of the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG is provided
here in order to provide background information for Virginia's negative
declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 8 of the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG states that it
replaces the December 1983 Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants CTG.
VADEQ submitted a negative declaration for this source category, so
it is listed in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Oil and Gas CTG divides the industry into four segments:
production, processing, transmission and storage, and distribution. CTG
p. 3-1; see also CTG pp. 3-1 through 3-3 for a brief explanation of
each segment. However, not all four segments of the industry are
subject to the requirements of the CTG. The 2016 Oil and Gas CTG covers
certain specified sources of VOC emissions in the onshore production
and processing segments of the

industry, as well as storage vessel VOC emissions in all segments of
the industry except distribution. CTG p. 3-5. A summary of the oil and
natural gas emission sources and recommended RACT for those sources is
provided in Table 1 of the CTG, on pages 3-6 through 3-8.
    In order to determine whether there were any sources in the
Northern Virginia area subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, VADEQ
consulted the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME)--
Division of Gas and Oil (DGO), database, which showed that only plugged
wells exist in the Northern Virginia area. VADEQ also consulted the
CEDS and found that no natural gas processing or storage facilities are
located in this area. VADEQ also consulted with the Virginia DMME,
which could not identify any natural gas processing or storage
facilities in the area. The details concerning VADEQ's analysis are on
pages 17 through 18 of Virginia's submittal. Notwithstanding VADEQ's
finding that there are no VOC sources in the Northern Virginia area
subjected to RACT by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, VADEQ identified
facilities in Northern Virginia defined by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG as
part of the oil and natural gas industry. Specifically, VADEQ
identified certain natural gas compressor stations in the Northern
Virginia area, but determined that these are ``downstream'' of the
point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage
segment. That is, these compressor stations are in neither the
production nor processing segment of the industry. Compressor stations
located in the transmission and storage segment of the oil and gas
industry are not subject to any RACT requirements specified by the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG. See CTG, p. 3-7. However, if these compressor stations
meet the VOC or NOX emission thresholds to be considered
major sources of VOC or NOX for a moderate ozone
nonattainment area, these sources will be subject to a major source
RACT determination under section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA.
    EPA notes that Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP submission does address
RACT for major sources of NOX and VOC in the Northern
Virginia area under section 182(b)(2)(C), but that portion of the SIP
submittal is not being addressed in this action, and will instead be
addressed in a future action taken by EPA. See CTG p. 3-7.\4\ VADEQ
asserts that there are no facilities in the Northern Virginia area that
are currently involved in oil and gas production and processing
activities covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For a diagram of the segments of the industry, see the CTG
at p. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that section 2.2 of the
April 2, 2020 submittal meets CAA requirements and that VADEQ's
analysis adequately demonstrates that there are no affected sources
located in the Northern Virginia area for the CTG source categories for
which VADEQ has submitted a new negative declaration or recertification
of an existing negative declaration. EPA is proposing to approve
section 2.2 of the Virginia SIP revision submitted on April 2, 2020,
which recertifies the negative declarations for the CTGs and ACTs
listed in Table 1 of this preamble for the purpose of partially
satisfying CAA section 182(2)(A) and (B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is also proposing to approve the negative declaration in section 2.2
for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. At this time, EPA is not proposing any
action on the other sections of Virginia's April 2, 2020 submission.
The other sections of Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal address those
CTGs and ACTs for which there are sources subject to the CTGs or ACTs
in the Northern Virginia area, and also address RACT for major
stationary sources of VOC or NOX located in the Northern
Virginia area. EPA will propose later separate action on those
remaining parts. EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed
approval of the negative declarations discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal

enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 certifying negative declarations for Northern
Virginia for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the negative declaration for the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 30, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-14576 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P