[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25489-25490]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09299]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-259, OMB Control No. 3235-0269]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17f-5.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-5 (17 CFR 270.17f-5) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the ``Act'') governs the custody of the assets of
registered management investment companies (``funds'') with custodians
outside the United States. Under rule 17f-5, a fund or its foreign
custody manager (as delegated by the fund's board) may maintain the
fund's foreign assets in the care of an eligible fund custodian under
certain conditions. If the fund's board delegates to a foreign custody
manager authority to place foreign assets, the fund's board must find
that it is reasonable to rely on each delegate the board selects to act
as the fund's foreign custody manager. The delegate must agree to
provide written reports that notify the board when the fund's assets
are placed with a foreign custodian and when any material change occurs
in the fund's custody arrangements. The delegate must agree to exercise
reasonable care, prudence, and diligence, or to adhere to a higher
standard of care. When the foreign custody manager selects an eligible
foreign custodian, it must determine that the fund's assets will be
subject to reasonable care if maintained with that custodian, and that
the written contract that governs each custody arrangement will provide
reasonable care for fund assets. The contract must contain certain
specified provisions or others that provide at least equivalent care.
The foreign custody manager must establish a system to monitor the
performance of the contract and the appropriateness of continuing to
maintain assets with the eligible foreign custodian.
    The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-5 are
intended to provide protection for fund assets maintained with a
foreign bank custodian whose use is not authorized by statutory
provisions that govern fund custody arrangements,\1\ and that is not
subject to regulation and examination by U.S. regulators. The
requirement that the fund board determine that it is reasonable to rely
on each delegate is intended to ensure that the board carefully
considers each delegate's qualifications to perform its
responsibilities. The requirement that the delegate provide written
reports to the board is intended to ensure that the delegate notifies
the board of important developments concerning custody arrangements so
that the board may exercise effective oversight. The requirement that
the delegate agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide
assurances to the fund that the delegate will properly perform its
duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See section 17(f) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements that the foreign custody manager determine that
fund assets will be subject to reasonable care with the eligible
foreign custodian and under the custody contract, and that each
contract contain specified provisions or equivalent provisions, are
intended to ensure that the delegate has evaluated the level of care
provided by the custodian, that it weighs the adequacy of contractual
provisions, and that fund assets are protected by minimal contractual
safeguards. The requirement that the foreign custody manager establish
a monitoring system is intended to ensure that the manager periodically
reviews each custody arrangement and takes appropriate action if
developing custody risks may threaten fund assets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The staff believes that subcustodian monitoring does not
involve ``collection of information'' within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (``Paperwork
Reduction Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates that each year, approximately 90
registrants \3\ could be required to make an average of one response
per registrant under rule 17f-5, requiring approximately 2.5 hours of
board of director time per response, to make the necessary findings
concerning foreign custody managers. The total annual burden associated
with these requirements of the rule is up to approximately 225 hours
(90 registrants x 2.5 hours per registrant). The staff further
estimates that during each year, approximately 15 global custodians \4\
are required to make an average of 4 responses per custodian concerning
the use of foreign custodians other than depositories. The staff
estimates that each response will take approximately 270 hours,
requiring approximately 1080 total hours annually per custodian (270
hours x 4 responses per custodian). The total annual burden associated
with these requirements of the rule is approximately 16,200 hours (15
global custodians x 1080 hours per custodian). Therefore, the total
annual burden of all collection of information requirements of rule
17f-5 is estimated to be up to 16,425 hours (225 + 16,200). The total
annual cost of burden hours is estimated to be $4,779,225 (225 hours x
$4,465/hour for board of director's time + (16,200 hours x $233/hour
for a trust administrator's time)).\5\ Compliance with the collection
of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the
benefit of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their
assets in foreign custodians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This figure is an estimate of the number of new funds each
year, based on data reported by funds for 2017, 2018, and 2019. In
practice, not all funds will use foreign custody managers. The
actual figure therefore may be smaller.
    \4\ This estimate is based on staff research.
    \5\ Based on fund industry representations, the staff estimated
in 2014 that the average cost of board of director time, for the
board as a whole, was $4,000 per hour. Adjusting for inflation, the
staff estimates that the current average cost of board of director
time is approximately $4,465 per hour. The $233/hour figure for a
trust administrator is from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits, and overhead.

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

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 28, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09299 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26166-26167]
[DOCID:fr11my10-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0654; FRL-9146-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Asbestos Dump Superfund Site (Site)
located in Meyersville, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), have determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0654, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Theresa Hwilka, Remedial
Project Manager
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pat Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Emergency & Remedial
Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007; Or Pat
Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor,
New York, NY 10007.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II,

Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New
York, NY 10007.

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0654. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 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.
    Docket:
    All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, Room 1828,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; and at Long Hill Township Free Public Library,
91 Central Avenue, Sterling, NJ 07930,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: 9 a.m. to
8 p.m., Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday and Saturday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of today's Federal
Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the
Asbestos Dump Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete
because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the
preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are
incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this
deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw
the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We
will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final
Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will
not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to
Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: April 1, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010-10848 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12891-12892]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05502]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-63-000.
    Applicants: Live Oak Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Live Oak Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5291.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-64-000.
    Applicants: White Pine Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of White Pine Solar.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-65-000.
    Applicants: White Oak Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of White Oak Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5308.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-66-000.
    Applicants: Brady Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Brady Wind.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5310.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-67-000.
    Applicants: Brady Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Brady Wind II.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-372-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Response to Deficiency Letter in
ER16-372-000 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1085-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-03-04 Distributed
Energy Resource Provider Initiative to be effective 6/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1086-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment X Article 5A
Revisions to Provide for Netting of TCR Credit Portfolio to be
effective 5/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160304-5262.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1087-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ENO-ELL Payment Agreement
to be effective 9/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1088-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Compliance filing: 3-7-2016_Att R-PSCo Compliance
Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1089-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: City of Chattahoochee PSA
Amendment RS No. 126 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1090-000.
    Applicants: DTE River Rouge No. 1, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel Market Based Rate Tariff
to be effective 3/8/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1091-000.
    Applicants: DTE Stoneman, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel Market Based Rate Tariff
to be effective 3/8/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1092-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: SPP-MISO JOA Revisions to Sections
5.2, 5.3, 5.4 to be effective 2/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1093-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PPL Electric submits
Interconnection Agreement No. 747 among PPL and Allegheny to be
effective 5/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1094-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4410; Queue Z2-077 (WMPA) to be effective 2/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1095-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4411; Queue AA1-059 (WMPA) to be effective 2/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1096-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-03-07_SPP-MISO JOA Changes
Related to Settlement Agreement to be effective 2/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1097-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-Apex Midway Wind
Second Amended & Restated IA to be effective 2/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20160307-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05502 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71638-71642]
[DOCID:fr24no10-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0062]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66, Elliot Bay,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulation establishing
a permanent safety zone extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliot Bay,
WA to ensure adequate safety during the parade of ships and aerial
demonstration for Fleet Week. This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking introduces revisions to enforcement dates, times and
location of this safety zone. This safety zone is necessary in order to
restrict vessel movement for participant and spectator safety in the
proximity of Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA to provide unencumbered access for
response craft in the event of an emergency during the annual parade of
ships and aerial demonstration.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0062 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Puget Sound
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0062), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0062'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may

change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0062'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    On February 25, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66,
Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA'' (Docket number USCG-2010-0062) in the Federal
Register (75 FR 037). This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
provides simplification of the enforcement dates, times and location
for this safety zone. Through this regulation, the U.S. Coast Guard is
proposing to establish a permanent safety zone extending 100 yards from
Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA to restrict the movement of vessels for
participant and spectator safety prior to, during, and immediately
after the annual parade of ships and aerial demonstration thereby
providing unencumbered access for response craft in the event of an
emergency during this event.
    The Fleet Week Parade of Ships has historically resulted in vessel
congestion near Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA which adversely compromises
participant and spectator safety. This safety zone is necessary to
direct the movement of vessels in the vicinity of Pier 66 establishing
unobstructed traffic lanes for response craft and ensuring participant,
spectator and maritime safety. The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound may
be assisted by other federal and local agencies in the enforcement of
this safety zone.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Seventeen comments stated that this regulation hinders free speech.
This regulation establishes a safety zone to ensure safety of the
boating public during Naval and aerial spectator events associated with
the annual Fleet Week parade of ships. The Coast Guard has narrowed the
timeframe that the zone is enforced to include thirty minutes prior to
and thirty minutes following the parade of ships and aerial
demonstration. The minimal size of this safety zone will enable
displays of free speech in visibly accessible areas to take place on
adjacent waters and along the pier.
    Three comments stated that this regulation does not allow for
public comment and one comment requested the public comment be made
available and posted. The Coast Guard has taken appropriate action in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to request
public comment and publicize this regulation through all required
avenues including the Federal Register and http://www.regulations.gov.
Additionally, public comment is provided for in four methods: The
Federal eRulemaking Portal, fax, mail and hand delivery as described in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (75 FR 037). These methods of comment
have properly provided ample opportunity to comment on this regulation
and the Coast Guard has received 72 comments on this rulemaking via
these means.
    Ten requests for a public meeting were received. The Coast Guard
does not plan to hold a public meeting at this time. The Coast Guard
has determined the extended comment period for the notice of proposed
rulemaking combined with numerous means available for public comment
provide adequate and sufficient time for the public to express their
concerns. Additional opportunity for public comment is made available
on this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
    The Coast Guard received one comment stating that expansion of the
safety zone is not warranted. This safety zone is not being expanded
based on previous versions, but will merely be permanently established
under 33 CFR part 165.
    Three comments stated the rulemaking process violates numerous
regulations. The Coast Guard has complied with the Administrative
Procedure Act in drafting and informing the public of this regulation.
    Five comments were received stating that this zone is unnecessary
because there is a minimal risk of congestion at Pier 66. This event
has historically resulted in vessel congestion near Pier 66 before and
after the fleet arrival which compromises participant and spectator
safety. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of
participating vessels by providing unobstructed lanes for the passing
of large ships during the fleet arrival and unobstructed access for
response craft in the event of an emergency.
    Three comments stated that this event takes place without a marine
event permit as required by 33 CFR part 100. The purpose and intent of
33 CFR part 100 is to provide effective control over marine events to
insure safety of life during the marine event. The Coast Guard is
involved in the planning and participation of this event thereby
upholding the intent of 33 CFR part 100.
    One comment stated this regulation was in violation of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b)(10), which
states, ``Each agency shall avoid regulations and guidance documents
that are inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other
regulations and guidance documents or those of other Federal
agencies.'' The Coast Guard is not violating this Executive order by
not requiring a marine event permit because the purpose and intent of
33 CFR part 100 ``is to provide effective control, over regattas and
marine parades * * * to ensure safety of life in the regatta or marine
parade area'', which we are accomplishing through active participation
in planning of the event and this rulemaking.
    Two comments stated concern regarding the Coast Guard enforcing its
own rules. In accordance with 33 CFR part 165, the Coast Guard is the
agency through which limited access areas, including safety and
security zones, are established. The establishment of such areas is
considered rulemaking, which means that each regulation that
establishes a limited access area must

first go through the rulemaking process and a multi-level review. In
this case, the rulemaking process has provided for public participation
during two separate public comment periods. Additionally, this
regulation must be reviewed by Congress under the Congressional Review
Act. Though the Coast Guard is an enforcer of the rule, it does not act
alone in the rulemaking process.
    Two comments stated the helicopter demonstration should be included
in this regulation. The regulation has been amended to include the
helicopter display in the definition of ``parade of ships.'' One of
these comments further stated that the 2009 helicopter demonstration
does not comply with Coast Guard policy outlined in COMDINST M5728.2D.
COMDINST M5728.2D is the Coast Guard Public Affairs Manual intended to
provide non-specific guidelines for public request of Coast Guard
assets during events. COMDINST M5728.2D addresses aerial displays
stating that (a) Coast Guard aircraft may participate in appropriate
public events; (d) Aerial demonstrations must be over open water or
suitable open areas of land, where spectators will be safe. The
functional capabilities of the Coast Guard helicopter fleet does not
preclude involvement in this marine event based on the proximity to
Pier 66 as presented by this comment. This safety zone provides a
necessary measure of safety by preventing spectator watercraft from
interfering or compromising the safety of the rescue swimmer entering
the water during the aerial demonstration.
    The Coast Guard received three comments stating that the zone is
not adequately described. The Coast Guard has amended this proposed
regulation in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking by
modifying the effective period for the zone to 30 minutes prior to and
30 after the conclusion of the parade of ships. In addition, we have
specified the effective day by stating that it typically occurs on
either the last Wednesday in July or the first Wednesday in August.
Lastly, we have provided greater granularity for the geographic
coordinates of the safety zone itself.
    Four comments stated that this safety zone is unnecessary due to
the Naval Vessel Protection Zone (NVPZ). The NVPZ regulation only
applies to U.S. naval vessels greater than 100 feet in length overall.
The annual Fleet Week parade of ships involves visiting foreign naval
vessels and/or Coast Guard vessels which are not protected by the NVPZ.
Lastly, the NVPZ does not apply to the aerial demonstration during the
parade of ships.
    One comment stated that this safety zone is unnecessary for
emergency response. This safety zone is necessary to provide an
unobstructed traffic lane for response craft during the event. Without
this safety zone, response craft would need to maneuver around
spectator vessels and in the event of an emergency, these vessels would
become hazardous to the response effort.
    One comment stated concern for the overall safety of Fleet Week
activities based on participation of a U.S. Navy Trident nuclear-
powered submarine in 1997 and 2000. This regulation will restrict
vessel movement 100 yards from Pier 66, prior to, during and
immediately following the parade of ships and aerial demonstration to
provide navigational safety for this marine event. This regulation will
extend 100 yards from Pier 66 annually regardless of the type of
participating vessels in the parade of ships.
    One comment stated that the Coast Guard ``opts for secrecy'' and
mentions that the opportunity to comment was not posted in the Local
Notice to Mariners or on the District Thirteen Webpage. This regulation
was published in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
in the Federal Register with a comment period of 90 days in order to
allow ample opportunity for public participation in this rulemaking. An
opportunity to provide public comments provided in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (75 FR 037) was made available via four methods as
stated above. Posting regulations in the Local Notice to Mariners or on
the District thirteen Web page is not required per the APA.
    One comment stated the violation penalty should be mentioned in
this regulation. This proposed regulation would be a component of 33
CFR part 165 which provides general and specific information for
Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas. Under 33 CFR part
165, Subpart A--General, 165.9(b) states, ``These zones and areas are
created under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221-
1232.'' 33 U.S.C. 1232 provides enforcement provisions for civil and
criminal penalties for violation of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act.
    One comment supported the adoption of less restrictive regulations
concerning water-borne peaceful protests referencing Bay Area Peace
Navy v. United States. This safety zone is minimal in size and short in
duration, thus accommodating all waterway users.
    One comment stated this regulation amounts to institutionalized
harassment. 33 CFR part 165 authorizes the establishment of safety
zones by the Captain of the Port for safety and environmental purposes.
    One comment stated the Coast Guard never explained how vessels in
Elliot Bay could endanger Navy Officers when the Coast Guard invites
the public to both locations. This regulation does not establish
security measures, but establishes a safety zone to provide increased
safety for the maritime public during this annual event.
    One comment stated this regulation does not provide alternative
channels for water-borne protestors to convey their message. Due to the
small size of the proposed safety zone and short enforcement period,
the Coast Guard believes that there is minimal impact on water-borne
protestors and other marine activities that can take place outside the
safety zone.
    Two comments stated that the ``12-hour effective period'' would
prohibit protestors from exercising their right to protest the parade
to spectators assembled on the pier. The ``effective time'' of a
regulation includes times of enforcement and non-enforcement.
``Enforcement times'' of a regulation are the times in which the
regulatory action will be enforced, when violators will be subject to
corrective direction and/or fines.
    One comment stated this proposed rule would burden substantially
more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate
interests. The Coast Guard believes that this proposed safety zone is
small enough in size and short enough in duration that it will not
substantially hinder protest activities for water-borne protest boats
and others may congregate in the vicinity of Pier 66 while spectators
are assembling and dispersing from this marine event when this safety
zone is not enforced.
    One comment stated this regulation fails to provide alternative
means for the protest boats to communicate their message. Revisions to
this regulation provide additional access to water-borne protest
activities by only restricting vessel movement 100 yards from Pier 66
immediately prior to, during and immediately following the parade of
ships and aerial display. Also, during times of enforcement, water-
borne protestors may congregate on the waters immediately adjacent to
this zone.
    The Coast Guard received five comments related to the need for
protestors to have access to communicate their message to spectators on
the pier. Revisions to this regulation provide access for water-borne
protest activities, enabling protestors to communicate their message
utilizing a water-borne display.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed regulation establishes vessel restrictions necessary
to provide safety for the maritime public during the parade of ships
and aerial display. This proposed rule will control the movement of all
vessels and persons within the indicated regulated area surrounding
Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA prior to, during and immediately after this
marine event. This zone would be delineated by the presence of on-scene
patrol craft and enforced immediately prior to, during and immediately
after the scheduled annual parade of ships and aerial demonstration for
Fleet Week events. This proposed safety zone will also provide
unencumbered access for rescue craft in the event of an emergency.
    This regulation has been revised as follows: The Coast Guard has
narrowed the timeframe that the zone is enforced to include ``thirty
minutes prior to the beginning and thirty minutes following the
conclusion of the parade of ships and aerial demonstration.'' The
effective time for this regulation has been changed to: ``This rule is
effective annually during the parade of ships which typically occurs on
a Wednesday during the last week of July or the first week in August
from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.'' The location of this safety zone has been
changed to ``All waters extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliot Bay,
WA within a box encompassed by the points, 47[deg] 36.719' N & 122[deg]
21.099' W, 47[deg] 36.682' N & 122[deg] 21.149' W, 47[deg] 36.514' N &
122[deg] 20.865' W, and 47[deg] 36.552' N & 122[deg] 20.814' W.''
    The Coast Guard will provide notice to the public for enforcement
of this zone through the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcast on VHF-FM Ch. 16 on the day of the event.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This proposed rule is not
a significant regulatory action because the period of enforcement and
size of this safety zone is minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone during times
of annual enforcement. This safety zone will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons. This safety zone would be activated and thus subject to
enforcement for a short duration and is minimal in size.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact LTJG Ashley M. Wanzer. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a safety zone extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliot Bay,
which will be activated and thus subject to enforcement, 30 minutes
prior to and 30 minutes following scheduled annual parade of ships
events. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701; 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1330 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1330  Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66,
Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
extending 100 yards from Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA within a box
encompassed by the points, 47[deg] 36.719' N & 122[deg] 21.099' W,
47[deg] 36.682' N & 122[deg] 21.149' W, 47[deg] 36.514' N & 122[deg]
20.865' W, and 47[deg] 36.552' N & 122[deg] 20.814' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor,
or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or Designated Representative, thirty minutes prior
to the beginning, during and thirty minutes following the conclusion of
the Parade of Ships. For the purpose of this rule, the Parade of Ships
includes both the pass and review of the ships near Pier 66 and the
aerial demonstrations immediately following the pass and review. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local
agencies as needed.
    (c) Authorization. In order to transit through this safety zone,
authorization must be granted by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or
Designated Representative. All vessel operators desiring entry into
this safety zone shall gain authorization by contacting either the on-
scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16, or Coast
Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Requests shall indicate the reason why
movement within the safety zone is necessary and the vessel's arrival
and/or departure facility name, pier and/or berth. Vessel operators
granted permission to enter this safety zone will be escorted by the
on-scene patrol until no longer within the safety zone.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective annually during the
parade of ships which typically occurs on a Wednesday during the last
week of July or the first week in August from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.
unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
S. J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-29422 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76929-76932]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31665]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0713; FRL-9504-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; Determinations of
Attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City Moderate Nonattainment Area and Withdrawal of
Attainment Demonstration Proposed Disapprovals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two determinations regarding the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 8-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment area (the Philadelphia Area). First, EPA is
proposing to make a determination that the Philadelphia Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008-
2010 monitoring period. If this proposal is made final, the requirement
for the Philadelphia Area to submit certain planning requirements
related to the attainment of the 1997 8-hours ozone NAAQS shall be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not
precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to
EPA for review and approval. Second, EPA is also proposing to determine
that the Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
its attainment date of June 15, 2011. Finally, EPA is withdrawing the
May 8, 2009 proposed disapprovals of the attainment demonstrations for
the Philadelphia Area, based on the ambient air quality monitoring data
demonstrating attainment. These actions are being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0713 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0713, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0713. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning EPA's
proposed action related to Delaware, Maryland or Pennsylvania, please
contact Maria A. Pino<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions concerning EPA's proposed
action related to New Jersey, please contact Paul Truchan (212) 637-
4249, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For detailed information regarding this
proposal, EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD). The TSD can
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this action.

I. What is EPA proposing?
II. What Proposed Rule is EPA withdrawing?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the effects of these proposed actions?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Withdrawal Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA proposing?

    Pursuant to sections 181(b)(2)(A) and 179(c) of the CAA, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Philadelphia Area

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, June 15,
2011. This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data from 2008-2010 that
show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during this monitoring period.
    EPA is also proposing to make a determination that the Philadelphia
Area has attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. This proposed determination is
based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring period. Once this
proposal becomes final, the requirement for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM),
a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures
related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended
for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is not precluded
from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for
review and approval. The States of Delaware and Maryland, and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted these SIP elements for their
portions of the Philadelphia Area to EPA for review and approval in
June 2007. The State of New Jersey submitted these SIP elements for its
portion of the Philadelphia Area to EPA for review and approval in
October 2007.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). This action addresses
only the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, and does not address
any subsequently revised 8-hour ozone standard.

II. What Proposed Rule is EPA withdrawing?

    On May 8, 2009, EPA proposed disapproval of Delaware's, Maryland's,
New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations
for the Philadelphia Area. See 74 FR 21599, 74 FR 21588, 74 FR 21578,
and 74 FR 21604, respectively. Based on the monitored air quality data
demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is
withdrawing the May 8, 2009 proposed disapprovals of the attainment
demonstrations. The Docket ID Numbers for the proposed disapprovals are
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0930, EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929, EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497,
and EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0928, respectively.

III. What is the background for these actions?

A. The Philadelphia Area

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour
ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over
longer periods of time, than was understood when the pre-existing 1-
hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard
would be more protective of human health, especially children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the Philadelphia Area. The
Philadelphia Area includes the entire State of Delaware; Cecil County
in Maryland; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland,
Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem Counties in New Jersey; and Bucks,
Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in
Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Area was classified as a moderate
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.808, 81.321, 81.331, and 81.339.
    Moderate areas are required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by no later than six years after designation, or June 15, 2010. See 40
CFR 51.903. However, the Philadelphia Area qualified for a 1-year
extension of its attainment date, based on the complete, certified
ambient air quality data for the 2009 ozone season. On January 21,
2011, EPA approved a 1-year extension of the Philadelphia Area's
attainment date, from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011. See 76 FR 3838
and 76 FR 3840.

B. Requirement To Determine Attainment by the Attainment Date

    Under CAA sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2), EPA is required to make a
determination that a nonattainment area has attained by its attainment
date, and publish that determination in the Federal Register. Under CAA
section 181(b)(2), which is specific to ozone nonattainment areas, if
EPA determines that an area failed to attain the ozone NAAQS by its
attainment date, EPA is required to reclassify that area to a higher
classification.

C. Clean Data Determination

    Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR
51.918), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the
relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and
comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other
planning requirements related to attainment for as long as the area
continues to attain. The determination of attainment is not equivalent
to a redesignation. The state must still meet the statutory
requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to
attainment.

D. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

    Complete, quality assured, certified 8-hour ozone air quality
monitoring data for 2008 through 2010 show that the Philadelphia Area
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. What are the effects of these proposed actions?

    If finalized, the proposed actions will not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The
designation status of the Philadelphia Area will remain nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment,
including an approved maintenance plan.

A. Proposed Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Philadelphia Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date
of June 15, 2011. Once this determination of attainment is made final,
EPA will have met its requirement pursuant to CAA sections 181(b)(2)(A)
and 179(c) to determine, based on the area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that date.
The effect of a final determination of attainment by the area's
attainment date will be to discharge EPA's obligation under CAA
sections 181(b)(2)(A) and 179, and to establish that, in accordance
with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the area will not be reclassified for
failure to attain by its applicable attainment date.

B. Clean Data Determination

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Philadelphia Area is
attaining the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Once EPA finalizes this determination of
attainment, the CAA requirement for the Philadelphia Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and the associated RFP plan, RFP contingency
measure, RACM analysis, contingency measures, and any other planning
SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    Although these requirements can be suspended with an approved clean
data determination, EPA is not precluded from acting upon these
elements, which were submitted to EPA in June and October of 2007 by
the States of Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey and the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. In fact, EPA approved each state's RFP plans, RFP
contingency measures, and RACM analyses for the Philadelphia Area in
separate rulemaking actions. Therefore, these requirements have been
fulfilled. EPA approved the RFP plans, RFP contingency measures, and
RACM analyses from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania on
April 8, 2010, June 11, 2010, May 15, 2009, and February 7, 2011,
respectively. See 75 FR 17863, 75 FR 33172, 74 FR 22837, and 76 FR
6559.
    The clean data determination will:
    (1) Suspend the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration,
contingency measures for attainment, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
    (2) Continue until such time, if any, that EPA (i) redesignates the
area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer apply, or
(ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS;
    (3) Be separate from, and not influence or otherwise affect, any
future designation determination or requirements for the area based on
any new or revised ozone NAAQS; and
    (4) Remain in effect regardless of whether EPA designates this area
as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the ozone ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring
period from 2008 through 2010 for the Philadelphia Area, as recorded in
the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. On the basis of that review,
EPA has concluded that this area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on data for the 2008-2010 ozone seasons.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an
ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm, based
on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I). This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to 0.084 ppm at each monitoring site within the
area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS.
    Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%,
and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in
appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.
    Table 1 shows the ozone design values for each monitor in the
Philadelphia Area for the years 2008-2010. All 2008-2010 design values
are below 0.084 ppm, and all monitors meet the data completeness
requirements. Therefore, the Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, considering 2008-2010 data.

                      Table 1--2008-2010 Philadelphia Area 1997 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008-2010
                                                                                2008-2010     Average  percent
              State                        County                Site ID        Design value          data
                                                                                (ppm)         completeness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE..............................  Kent....................       10-001-0002             0.074               100
                                  New Castle..............       10-003-1007             0.075                92
                                                                 10-003-1010             0.076                91
                                                                 10-003-1013             0.075                98
                                  Sussex..................       10-005-1002             0.077                99
                                  ........................       10-005-1003             0.077                97
MD..............................  Cecil...................       24-015-0003             0.080                94
NJ..............................  Atlantic................       34-001-0006             0.074                96
                                  Camden..................       34-007-1001             0.080                97
                                  Cumberland..............       34-011-0007             0.076                98
                                  Gloucester..............       34-015-0002             0.081                98
                                  Mercer..................       34-021-0005             0.078                98
                                  Ocean...................       34-029-0006             0.081                98
PA..............................  Bucks...................       42-017-0012             0.083                99
                                  Chester.................       42-029-0100             0.076                97
                                  Delaware................       42-045-0002             0.074                98
                                  Montgomery..............       42-091-0013             0.078                98
                                  Philadelphia............       42-101-0004             0.066                97
                                                                 42-101-0024             0.082                95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's review of the data indicates that the Philadelphia Area has met
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additional information on air quality data
for the Philadelphia Area can be found in the TSD.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to make two determinations regarding the
Philadelphia Area. First, EPA is proposing to make a determination that
the Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. If EPA
finalizes this determination, the requirements to submit an attainment
demonstration, contingency measures for attainment, and any other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will be suspended, as provided in 40 CFR section 51.918, so

long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, pursuant to sections 179 and 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, June 15, 2011. These
proposed determinations are based upon complete, quality assured, and
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring
period. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

VII. Withdrawal Action

    Based on ambient air quality monitoring data that demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is withdrawing the May
8, 2009 proposed disapprovals of Delaware's, Maryland's, New Jersey's,
and Pennsylvania's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations for the
Philadelphia Area. (74 FR 21599, 74 FR 21588, 74 FR 21578, and 74 FR
21604)

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, and would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed determination that the Philadelphia Area
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 25, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

     Dated: November 22, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011-31665 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P