[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7118-7126]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02574]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0762; FRL-9906-04-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans--Maricopa
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of
the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Arizona to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements applicable to
the Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area. The Maricopa
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area is located in the eastern portion of
Maricopa County and encompasses the cities of Phoenix, Mesa,
Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, several other smaller
jurisdictions, unincorporated County lands, as well as the town of
Apache Junction in Pinal County. The Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area is designated as a serious nonattainment area for
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter of ten microns or less (PM-10). The submitted SIP revision is
the Maricopa Association of Governments Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for
the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (2012 Five Percent Plan).
Arizona's obligation to submit the 2012 Five Percent Plan was triggered
by EPA's June 6, 2007 finding that the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area had failed to meet its December 31, 2006 deadline to attain the
PM-10 NAAQS. The CAA requires a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that
fails to meet its attainment deadline to submit a plan providing for
attainment of the PM-10.
    NAAQS and for an annual emission reduction in PM-10 or PM-10
precursors of not less than five percent until attainment. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2012 Five Percent Plan as meeting all relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0762, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Deliver: Gregory Nudd (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415-
947-4107<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment
Area
II. Overview of Applicable CAA Requirements
III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan's Compliance with CAA
Requirements
IV. Summary of Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Non-Attainment Area

    The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by
EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient
air pollutants for which EPA has established health-based standards.
PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the lungs,
aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and
people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the health-based national ambient air
quality standards, replacing the standards for total suspended
particulates with new standards applying only to particulate matter up
to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672. At that time, EPA
established two PM-10 standards, annual and 24-hour. Effective December
18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM-10 standard but retained the 24-
hour PM-10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM-10
standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) is attained
when the expected number of days with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ per calendar year averaged over a three year
period, as determined in accordance with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50,
is equal to or less than one. 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix
K.
    On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA
or the Act), many areas, including the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area, meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended
Act were designated nonattainment by operation of law. 56 FR 11101
(March 15, 1991). The Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area is located in
the eastern portion of Maricopa County and encompasses the cities of
Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, as well as 15
other jurisdictions, four tribes and unincorporated County lands. The
nonattainment area also includes the town of Apache Junction in Pinal
County. EPA codified the boundaries of the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area at 40 CFR 81.303.
    Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of
the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area as moderate or
serious and establishes the area's attainment deadline. In accordance
with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-10
nonattainment areas, including the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area,
were initially classified as moderate.
    A moderate PM-10 nonattainment area must be reclassified to serious
PM-10 nonattainment by operation of law if EPA determines after the
applicable attainment date that, based on air quality, the area failed
to attain by that date. CAA sections 179(c) and

188(b)(2). On May 10, 1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa PM-10
Nonattainment Area as a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. 61 FR 21372.
    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the area acquired a new
attainment deadline of no later than December 31, 2001. CAA section
188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) authorizes EPA to grant up to a
5-year extension of that attainment deadline if certain conditions are
met by the state. In order to obtain the extension, the state must make
a SIP submission showing that: (1) Attainment by the applicable
attainment date would be impracticable; (2) the state complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
implementation plan for the area; and (3) the plan for the area
includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that are included in the
implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any
state, and can feasibly be implemented in the specific area. Arizona
requested an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e) for the
Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area from December 31, 2001 to December
31, 2006.
    On July 25, 2002, EPA approved the serious area PM-10 plan for the
Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area as meeting the requirements for such
areas in CAA sections 189(b) and (c), including the requirements for
implementation of best available control measures (BACM) in section
189(b)(1)(B) and MSM in section 188(e). In the same action, EPA
approved the submission with respect to the requirements of section
188(e) and granted Arizona's request to extend the attainment date for
the area to December 31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. This final action, as well
as the two proposals preceding it, provide a more detailed discussion
of the history of PM-10 planning in the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area. See 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000);
and 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001).
    On June 6, 2007, EPA found that the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area failed to attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 2006 (72 FR 31183). Accordingly, the
state was required to submit a new plan meeting the requirements of
section 189(d) by December 31, 2007.
    On December 19, 2007, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
adopted the ``MAG 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area'' (2007 Five Percent Plan).\1\ On December
21, 2007 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
submitted the 2007 Five Percent Plan and two Pinal County resolutions.
EPA proposed to partially disapprove this plan on September 9, 2010. 75
FR 54806. On January 25, 2011, prior to EPA's final action on the 2007
Five Percent Plan, Arizona withdrew the plan from the Agency's
consideration. As a result of the withdrawal of the 2007 Five Percent
Plan, on February 14, 2011, EPA made a finding of failure to make a
required SIP submittal. 76 FR 8300. This finding of failure to submit
obligated EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within
two years after that date, unless the state submits and EPA approves a
SIP submission meeting the requirements of section 189(d) by such date.
CAA section 110(c). Because EPA's evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent
Plan indicates that it meets the requirements of section 189(d), EPA is
proposing to approve the submission in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MAG has responsibility for air quality and transportation
planning in the metropolitan Phoenix region. MAG develops air
quality plans in coordination with ADEQ, the Arizona Department of
Transportation, and the Maricopa County Air Quality Department. See
2012 Five Percent Plan at ES-1; Appendix E., Exh. 2 (Resolution to
Adopt the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 Five Percent Plan was adopted by MAG on May 23, 2012 and
submitted to EPA by ADEQ on May 25, 2012.\2\ MAG adopted and ADEQ
submitted the 2012 Five Percent Plan specifically to address the CAA
requirements in section 189(d) for the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment
Area. EPA reviewed the submission and found it to be complete on July
20, 2012.\3\ EPA is proposing approval of the submission as meeting the
requirements of section 189(d) in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Also on May 25, 2012, Arizona submitted several Arizona
statutes, Maricopa County rules, a Maricopa County ordinance, and
related appendices for approval into the Arizona SIP. By letter
dated May 21, 2013, Arizona submitted redacted materials to clarify
its May 25, 2012 submittal. By letter dated September 26, 2013,
Arizona withdrew its May 21, 2013 submittal and submitted a table
and redacted materials as a supplement to the May 25, 2012 submittal
to clarify the materials it is requesting EPA to approve into the
Arizona SIP.
    \3\ Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA
Region 9 to Henry Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality dated July 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of Applicable CAA Requirements

    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that failed to meet its
applicable attainment date, December 31, 2006, the Maricopa PM-10
Nonattainment Area is subject to CAA section 189(d). Section 189(d)
provides that the state shall ``submit within 12 months after the
applicable attainment date, plan revisions which provide for attainment
of the PM-10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission
until attainment, for an annual reduction of PM-10 or PM-10 precursor
emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of
such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for
the area.''
    The general planning and control requirements for all nonattainment
plans are found in CAA sections 110 and 172. More specific planning and
control requirements relevant to the PM-10 NAAQS are found in Part D,
Subpart 4, in CAA sections 188 and 189. EPA has issued a General
Preamble \4\ and Addendum to the General Preamble \5\ to provide
guidance to states for meeting the CAA's requirements for the PM-10
NAAQS. The General Preamble mainly addresses the requirements for
moderate nonattainment areas and the Addendum addresses the
requirements for serious nonattainment areas. EPA has also issued other
guidance documents related to PM-10 plans which are discussed and cited
below. The specific PM-10 plan requirements addressed by this proposed
action are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
    \5\ ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994) (Addendum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Emissions Inventories

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an attainment plan include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutants.

B. Section 189(d) Attainment Demonstration and Five Percent Requirement

    For serious PM-10 nonattainment areas that do not attain the PM-10
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 189(d) requires
the state to submit plan revisions that provide for attainment of the
NAAQS (i.e., an attainment demonstration) and provide for an annual
five percent reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions for each
year from the date of

submission until attainment.\6\ Section 189(d) specifies that the state
must submit these plan revisions within 12 months of the applicable
attainment date that the area failed to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA has previously determined that PM-10 precursors are not
significant contributors to PM-10 levels in the Maricopa County PM-
10 Nonattainment Area. See 65 FR 19971 (April 13, 2000); 67 FR 48718
(July 25, 2002). In those rulemaking notices, EPA specifically
determined that the contribution from major stationary sources of
PM-10 precursors was less than 0.5 percent of the annual PM-10
NAAQS. See e.g., 65 FR 19971. Subsequent technical studies confirm
that ambient PM-10 levels in the nonattainment area are primarily
from crustal material and are not derived from organic compounds,
nitrates or sulfates. See e.g., ``PM-10 Source Attribution and
Deposition Study,'' prepared by Sierra Research, Inc. for Maricopa
Association of Governments (March 2008) at pg. 2 (``Local monitoring
by co-located PM-10 and PM-2.5 monitors confirms that PM-2.5 on high
PM-10 days is a small fraction of the PM-10 concentrations.
Therefore, the PM-10 problem in the Maricopa County nonattainment
area is largely attributable to coarse particles, comprised
primarily of geologic material.''); see also, id. at Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that implementation plans
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) as defined in section
171(1). Section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part [part D of title I] or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' The
general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) applies to SIP submissions
necessary to meet CAA section 189(d) for the PM-10 NAAQS.
    In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1) specifically applicable to the
PM-10 NAAQS requires that an implementation plan contain quantitative
milestones which will be achieved every 3 years and which will
demonstrate that RFP is being met.

D. Contingency Measures

    CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that implementation plans provide
for ``the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the
area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the NAAQS
by the attainment date applicable under this part [part D of title I].
Such measures are to take effect in any such case without further
action by the State or the Administrator.'' The contingency measure
requirement of CAA section 179(c)(9) applies to the SIP submissions
necessary to meet CAA section 189(d) for the PM-10 NAAQS.

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestone. Once a SIP that
contains motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) has been submitted to
EPA, and EPA has found them adequate, these budgets are used for
determining conformity: Emissions from planned transportation
activities must be less than or equal to the budgets.

F. Adequate Authority

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that implementation plans
provide necessary assurances that the state (or the general purpose
local government or regional agency designated by the state for this
purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding and authority under
state law to carry out the requirements of such plan. Requirements for
legal authority are further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart L
(51.230-51.232) and for resources in 40 CFR 51.280. States and
responsible local agencies must also demonstrate that they have the
legal authority to adopt and enforce provisions of the SIP and to
obtain information necessary to determine compliance.

III. Evaluation of the 2012 Five Percent Plan's Compliance With CAA
Requirements

A. Emissions Inventories

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires all nonattainment area plans to
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
the area at issue. Our policies require that the inventory be fully
documented. The 2012 Five Percent Plan uses the comprehensive ``2008
PM-10 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Maricopa County, Revised 2011''
(2008 PM-10 Inventory) as a starting point in the analysis.\7\ The 2008
PM-10 Inventory was developed by the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)--
MCAQD prepared emission estimates for point sources and most area and
nonroad mobile sources, and MAG prepared emission estimates for onroad
mobile, biogenic and certain area and nonroad mobile sources. 2012 Five
Percent Plan, Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory was
adjusted by MAG for economic and population changes to provide
projected emissions inventories for 2007 through 2012. 2012 Five
Percent Plan at p. 3-2; Appendix B, Exh. 1, Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory is included as Appendix A, Exhibit
1 to the 2012 Five Percent Plan. The 2008 PM-10 Inventory includes
revisions made by MAG in 2011 to incorporate more recent vehicle
registration data, and updated models and planning assumptions. See
2012 Five Percent Plan, Appendix B, Exh. 1, at II-10 to II-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 PM-10 Inventory describes annual emissions from point,
area, nonroad, on-road, and nonanthropogenic sources in the Maricopa
County and the Pinal County portion of the nonattainment
area.8 9 The 2008 PM-10 Inventory shows that the most
significant sources of emissions in the Maricopa County Nonattainment
Area are unpaved roads and alleys (21 percent), construction-related
fugitive dust (17 percent), paved road dust (17 percent) and windblown
dust (9 percent). 2012 Five Percent Plan, Table 5-3. The 2008 PM-10
Inventory and related inventories for 2007 through 2012 are well
documented by documentation meeting our guidance criteria. See
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations'', EPA, August 2005 (2005 EI Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory notes that Maricopa County is
approximately 9,223 square miles, whereas the Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area is approximately 2,888 square miles. See 2012
Five Percent Plan at p. 3-2.
    \9\ The 2008 PM-10 Inventory also references ``typical daily
emissions.'' The 2012 Five Percent Plan does not rely on ``typical
daily emissions'' for the attainment demonstration or the five
percent reduction in annual emissions; therefore, we did not
comprehensively analyze these values in connection with today's
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The base year, 2008, is a reasonably current year, considering the
length of time needed to develop an inventory, perform the modeling,
develop and adopt control measures, and hold public hearings on such a
large and technically-complex plan.
    The MAG plan inventories are sufficiently comprehensive, covering
all sources of PM-10 that have been found to be important sources of
relevant emissions in this and other PM-10 nonattainment areas. The
2008 PM-10 Inventory includes emissions for certain PM-10 precursors
(nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia). The

2007-2012 projected inventories based on the 2008 PM-10 Inventory do
not include emissions of PM-10 precursors; however, EPA has previously
determined that these precursors do not play a significant part in the
PM-10 problems in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. See 65
FR 19971 (April 13, 2000); see also, note 6. EPA proposes to find again
that precursors still do not play a significant part in PM-10 problems
in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
    In developing the inventory, MAG and MCAQD followed EPA's 2005
guidance and recommendations regarding the use of emission factors,
activity estimates, and control factors, and the other source specific
emission estimation methodologies. The relative accuracy of each
estimate underwent the prescribed quality assurance procedures,
documented in the 2008 PM-10 Inventory, Sections 2.7, 3.7, 4.14 and
5.5, to minimize possible errors. MCAQD used reasonable and accurate
methods to calculate rule effectiveness.
    Rule effectiveness is the estimate of the extent to which a state
rule in the SIP is achieving the intended reductions. A rule is 100
percent effective only if every impacted source is in compliance at all
times. Often, rules are not 100 percent effective, and this aspect must
be considered when calculating the emissions reductions from the rule.
The 2008 PM-10 Inventory generally complies with EPA's guidance on
calculating rule effectiveness found in Appendix B of EPA's 2005 EI
Guidance.
    EPA's analysis indicates the inventory is sufficiently accurate for
the purposes of the 2012 Five Percent Plan. Because we find that the
inventory is current, comprehensive, and accurate, we propose to
approve the 2008 PM-10 Inventory and the adjusted inventories for 2007,
2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 under CAA section 172(c)(3).

B. Attainment Demonstration

    EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM-10
NAAQS based on complete, quality assured, and certified data collected
at state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment
area. Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by
calculating the average number of expected exceedances of the standard
over a three-year period. Specifically, the 24-hour PM-10 standard is
attained when the expected number of exceedances averaged over a three-
year period is less than or equal to one at each monitoring site within
the nonattainment area.\10\ In the case of a monitor that collects
daily data, and has a full three years worth of adequate data, that
monitor should show no more than one exceedance of the standard in a
three year period. If all of the monitors in the nonattainment area
meet the standard for the requisite period reflecting the form of the
24 hour PM-10 NAAQS, then the area has attained the standard. This
point is discussed in more detail in our technical support document
(TSD).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 50.6(a); 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.
    \11\ Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on the 2012
Five Percent Plan, U.S. EPA Region 9, January 14, 2014, Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Attainment Deadline
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan predicts attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
by December 31, 2012. For an area determined by EPA to have failed to
attain by the applicable attainment date for a serious PM-10
nonattainment area, CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3) specify that
the new attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later than 5
years from the date of publication of the nonattainment finding in the
Federal Register. Pursuant to these provisions, the attainment date for
the Maricopa PM-10 Nonattainment Area would be as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than June 6, 2012.\12\ CAA section
172(a)(2), however, authorizes EPA to extend the attainment deadline to
the extent it deems appropriate for a period no greater than 10 years
from the publication of the nonattainment finding, ``considering the
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of
pollution control measures.'' EPA believes such an extension to
December 31, 2012, is warranted, based on various factors, including
the following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, EPA notes that the PM-10 NAAQS is an calendar-based
standard, which makes setting a mid-year attainment deadline (such as
June 6) less appropriate than setting an end of calendar year date that
would include the entire year of monitored data for comparison against
the NAAQS. In addition, the 2012 Five Percent Plan explains that an
extension is reasonable because modeled attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
requires implementation of a new measure, the Dust Action General
Permit. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 6-45 through 6-47. The Dust
Action General Permit is a new measure developed by ADEQ and MAG
following EPA's identification of approvability issues in the 2007 Five
Percent Plan, including flaws in the emissions inventory. These flaws
required Arizona and MAG to develop a new emissions inventory and new
attainment demonstration and to convene technical and stakeholder
groups for appropriate input. One result of these processes was the
Dust Action General Permit, which identifies a series of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for specific dust generating operations.
When ADEQ's Maricopa County Dust Control Forecast predicts that a day
is at high risk for dust generation, those dust generating operations
that are not already required to control dust through a permit issued
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) or the
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) are expected to choose
and implement at least one BMP to reduce or prevent PM-10 emissions.
The Dust Action General Permit required action by the Arizona
Legislature and was not finalized until December 30, 2011.\13\ ADEQ and
MAG estimate that the Dust Action General Permit will increase the rule
effectiveness of Rule 310.01 by one percent on high wind days, or 190
tons on an annual basis. 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 5-4 and p. 6-45.
ADEQ and MAG also state that modeled attainment cannot be shown without
the reductions attributable to the Dust Action General Permit. It was
necessary to extend the attainment date until December 2012 in order
for the Dust Action General Permit to be adopted and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Arizona House Bill 2208, which added ARS 49-457.05 and
authorized creation of the Dust Action General Permit, was enacted
in April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, EPA concurs that an extension of the attainment
deadline to December 31, 2012 is warranted.
2. Modeled Attainment Demonstration
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan shows attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
through modeled attainment demonstrations for the area near the Salt
River in central Phoenix, (including the West 43rd Avenue monitor which
recorded the most PM-10 exceedances during high wind conditions for the
period 2005-2010) and for the entire Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area. See generally, 2012 Five Percent Plan, Chapter 6.
MAG conducted modeling for two design days: May 4, 2007 (based on data
from the West 43rd Avenue monitor), and June 6, 2007 (based on data
from the Higley and West 43rd Avenue monitors). In consultation with
ADEQ and EPA, MAG selected the design days and locations based on the
fact that, for the past few years, measured exceedances of the PM-10
NAAQS have been associated with

elevated winds. MAG's selected design days were not days that would be
likely to be considered a high wind exceptional event (i.e., the
geographic extent of the exceedances did not suggest the occurrence of
an area-wide storm event). EPA's detailed analysis of the modeling can
be found in Section IV of the TSD for this action. The modeling was
conducted in a way that was consistent with EPA guidance and the input
of EPA technical experts. The modeling indicates that the emission
reductions in the plan should result in PM-10 levels that are
consistent with the NAAQS by December 31. 2012. This attainment
modeling was confirmed by the monitoring data as described in the next
section of this proposal. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the 2012
Five Percent Plan's attainment demonstration provides sufficient
assurance that the control measures implemented in the nonattainment
area will be sufficient to ensure ongoing compliance with the PM-10
standard in the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
3. Monitoring Data Showing Attainment
    EPA is also taking into account the fact that monitoring data
recorded at air quality monitors throughout the Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area show that the area in fact reached attainment of the
PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2012. Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10
standard is determined by calculating the average number of expected
exceedances of the standard over a three-year period. Specifically, the
24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the expected number of
exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal to
one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. During the
2010-2012 time period, MCAQD operated fifteen PM-10 monitors, while
ADEQ and the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD)
operated an additional three PM-10 monitoring stations in the area.
EPA's analysis indicates that all of these monitors have an expected
exceedance of less than one for the years 2010-2012.
    EPA's review of monitoring data for the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for the
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area includes exceedances of the
standard recorded during the 2010-2012 time period. However, EPA does
not consider these exceedances of the NAAQS to be violations because
they were the result of exceptional events. ADEQ submitted three
packages containing demonstrations for high wind PM-10 exceptional
events covering a total of one hundred thirty-three measured
exceedances occurring over twenty-seven days in the years 2011 and 2012
at monitors within the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area. EPA
reviewed the documentation that ADEQ provided to demonstrate that the
exceedances on these days meet the criteria for an exceptional event in
EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (EER).\14\ EPA concurred with ADEQ's
requests for exceptional event determinations, based on the weight of
evidence, that one hundred thirty-one of the one hundred thirty-three
exceedances were caused by high wind exceptional events.\15\
Accordingly EPA has determined that the monitored exceedances
associated with these exceptional events should not be used for
regulatory purposes, including for evaluation of the CAA section 189(d)
plan submission. Excluding these exceedances caused predominantly by
uncontrollable emissions, EPA proposes to determine that the Maricopa
County PM-10 Nonattainment Area has attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
based on the monitors operated by ADEQ, MCAQD and PCAQD. This is
consistent with attainment of the standard projected by the state in
the 2012 Five Percent Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 50.1(j), (k), (l); 50.14; 51.930.
    \15\ See Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, ADEQ, dated
September 6, 2012, May 6, 2013, and July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monitors operated by tribal governments in the nonattainment area
also provide data that can be considered to evaluate attainment. The
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community operates three PM-10
monitoring stations on tribal land within the Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and are
therefore appropriate to consider when determining if the area has
attained the standard. As our analysis in Section III of the TSD
indicates, these monitors show exceedances of the standard on three
days during the 2010-2012 time period. Two of those exceedances (both
on July 8, 2011) were during area-wide storms that resulted in
exceedances at the non-tribal monitors that EPA has already determined
were caused by exceptional events. EPA TSD Section III. The third
exceedance (on July 2, 2011) appears to be related to local sources
rather than an exceptional event. Pursuant to 40 CFR 49.10, however,
EPA cannot disapprove a state SIP submittal because of the ``failure to
address air resources within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
Reservation or other areas within the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe.'' Therefore, we did not further consider these exceedances as
part of this proposed action to approve the 2012 Five Percent Plan.
    The plan submitted by the state projected that the Maricopa County
PM-10 Nonattainment Area would attain by December 31, 2012, because
that was the most expeditious attainment date practicable considering
the severity of nonattainment and the availability of controls in the
area. Monitoring data for the years 2010-2012, taking into account
EPA's determinations with respect to exceptional events during that
period, indicate that the area attained the standard as of December 31,
2012.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Additional exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS occurred on six
days between April and October 2013. Arizona has indicated its
intent to submit documentation regarding these exceedances to EPA
and to request that EPA concur with the state's determination that
they qualify as exceptional events. EPA will evaluate the state's
submissions and requests consistent with the EER and relevant
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the 2012 Five Percent Plan meets the
requirement to demonstrate attainment by the appropriate attainment
date. This proposed finding is based on our analysis of the modeling
described in the plan and analysis of the monitoring data for the years
2010-2012.

C. Five Percent Requirement

    CAA section 189(d) requires a state with a serious PM-10
nonattainment area that fails to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment deadlines to submit within 12 months after the
applicable attainment date plan revisions which provide an annual five
percent reduction in emissions of PM-10 or PM-10 precursors in the area
from the date of the submission until attainment, based on the most
recent inventory.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan's demonstration of annual five percent
reductions is found in Chapter 5. Arizona and MAG used the 2008 PM-10
Inventory as the ``most recent inventory'' and derived emissions levels
for years 2007-2012 based upon the 2008 PM-10 Inventory. See Five
Percent Plan at p. 5-4. The demonstration of annual five percent
reductions uses 2007 as the baseline from which the five percent
reductions are calculated and as point at which the reductions should
start.\17\ The 2012 Five Percent Plan's

demonstration is summarized in Table 1,18 19 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA believes Arizona's use of 2007 as the baseline for five
percent reductions is reasonable and consistent with Congress'
intent. Section 189(d) states that plans are due within 12 months of
the missed attainment deadline and that the plans should provide for
annual five percent reductions from the date of the submission until
attainment. Arizona's attainment deadline was December 31, 2006. 67
FR 48718 (July 25, 2002). Accordingly, a submittal to fulfill
section 189(d) was due by December 31, 2007, and reductions should
have begun to occur as of that date. See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007).
The decline in emissions from 2007 to 2008 shows that reductions
did, in fact, begin to occur within that time frame. See Table 1.
Arguably, these reductions occurred outside the literal time frame
specified by Congress (i.e., ``the date of the submission'' of the
plan) because the 2012 Five Percent Plan was not submitted until May
26, 2012. We note that Arizona had submitted the 2007 Five Percent
Plan on December 21, 2007 (although it withdrew the plan on January
25, 2011). EPA believes that it is appropriate and consistent with
Congress's intent for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS that we
consider reductions that occurred prior to the submittal of the 2012
Five Percent Plan.
    \18\ Table 5-2
    \19\ Table 5-3

                                Table 1--2012 Five Percent Plan Emissions by Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                     2007         2008         2009         2010         2011         2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Inventory \18\...........       59,218       56,681       52,123       50,497       49,743       49,673
Controlled Inventory \19\.........       59,218       49,231       45,600       44,062       43,438       43,130
Annual Reduction..................  ...........        9,987        3,631        1,538          624          308
Cumulative Reduction..............  ...........        9,987       13,618       15,156       15,780       16,088
Target Reduction..................  ...........        2,961        5,922        8,883       11,844       14,805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``baseline inventory'' values are derived from the 2008 PM-10
Inventory as adjusted by population and economic growth factors from
the University of Arizona. See 2012 Five Percent Plan, at p. 5-4 and p.
5-5, Table 5-2. The ``controlled inventory'' values show emission
levels after taking into account reductions attributable to adopted
control measures, specifically, Rules 310, 310.01 and 316, and the Dust
Action General Permit. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at p. 5-1 through 5-
6; see also, p. 5-7, Table 5-3. ``Annual reduction'' is the
mathematical difference between the prior year controlled inventory and
the current year controlled inventory. ``Cumulative reduction'' is the
running total of actual reductions starting with 2007 and continuing to
the attainment year of 2012. The target required reduction is five
percent of the base year (2007) inventory (2,961 tons per year) for the
first year (2008), and additional reductions of five percent per year,
until the attainment year of 2012.
    The ``controlled inventory'' values reflect emission reductions due
to improved compliance with Maricopa County Rules 310 (Fugitive Dust
from Dust-Generating Operations), 310.01 (Fugitive Dust from Non-
Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust) and 316 (Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing) as well as the benefits of the Dust Action General Permit
in 2012.\20\ Maricopa County has been inspecting sources subject to
these rules and tracking the extent to which the sources are complying
with the regulations. Based on these data, MCAQD calculated rule
effectiveness values for each rule. See 2012 Five Percent Plan,
Appendix B, Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA has approved Rules 310, 310.01 and 316 into the Arizona
SIP. 75 FR 78167 (Dec. 15, 2010); 74 FR 58554 (Nov. 13, 2009). EPA
has also approved Arizona statutory provisions related to the Dust
Action General Permit. 78 FR 72579 (Dec. 3, 2013). EPA intends to
propose action on the Dust Action General Permit in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 Five Percent Plan demonstrates compliance with the five
percent reduction requirement by comparing the cumulative reductions
from the Dust Action General Permit and increased effectiveness of the
Maricopa County rules against the total five percent reductions each
year. Most of the required reductions were achieved in the early years
of the plan. EPA encourages this approach as it accelerates the
environmental benefits of the reductions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This approach is consistent with the approach taken in a
previous section 189(d) plan for the San Joaquin Valley. See 69 FR
5411 (Feb. 4, 2004) and 69 FR 30006 (May 25, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

    Pursuant to sections 172(c)(3) and 189(c)(1), the state must
demonstrate RFP in the 2012 Five Percent Plan. We have explained in
guidance that for areas such as the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment
Area where ``the nonattainment problem is attributed to area type
sources (e.g., fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, etc.), RFP
should be met by showing annual incremental emission reductions
sufficient generally to maintain linear progress towards attainment.
Total PM-10 emissions should not remain constant or increase from 1
year to the next in such an area.'' Addendum at 42015. Further, we have
stated that, ``in reviewing the SIP, EPA will determine whether the
annual incremental emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in
light of the statutory objective to ensure timely attainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS.'' Id. at 42016.
    CAA section 189(c) further requires PM-10 attainment plans to
contain quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three
years and that are consistent with RFP for the area. These quantitative
milestones should consist of elements that allow RFP to be quantified
or measured objectively. Specifically, states should identify and
submit quantitative milestones that allow for evaluation of whether the
plan is obtaining emission reductions adequate to achieve the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date. Id. at 42016.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan provides a reasonable further progress
(RFP) demonstration in Chapter 6. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-34
through 6-36. This analysis uses the controlled inventory totals by
year as shown in Table 1 of this proposal. Specifically, the 2012 Five
Percent Plan shows the following levels of PM-10, which decline between
2007 and 2012:

2007--59,218 tons
2008--49,231 tons
2009--45,600 tons
2010--44,062 tons
2011--43,438 tons
2012--43,130 tons

    The analysis required for the five percent demonstration provides
annual emission targets between the base year of 2007 and the
attainment year of 2012. These annual totals show a steady downward
trend in emissions that fulfills the milestone requirement of every
three years. See 2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-36, Fig. 6-6. The trend is
more sharply downward in the initial years because most of the
improvements in rule effectiveness occurred in 2008. Id at 35-36. EPA
proposes to find that the 2012 Five Percent Plan has demonstrated
reasonable further progress and that by setting annual target emission
levels, the plan has exceeded the requirement to provide for milestones
every three years.

E. Contingency Measures

    CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that attainment plans provide for
the

implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails
to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the PM-10 standard as
projected in the plan. That section further requires that such measures
are to take effect in any such case without further action by the state
or EPA. The CAA does not specify how many contingency measures are
necessary nor does it specify the level of emission reductions they
must produce.
    In guidance we have explained that the purpose of contingency
measures is to ensure that additional emission reductions beyond those
relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations are available
immediately if there is a failure to meet RFP requirements or a failure
to attain by the applicable statutory date. Addendum at 42014-42015.
Contingency measures must consist of measures that the state is not
otherwise relying on to meet other attainment plan requirements in the
area. Thus, these additional emission reductions that will be achieved
by the contingency measures ensure continued progress towards
attainment while the state is revising the SIP to correct the failure
to meet RFP or to attain. To that end, we recommend that contingency
measures for PM-10 nonattainment areas provide emission reductions
equivalent to one year's average increment of RFP. Id.
    In interpreting the requirement that the contingency measures must
``take effect without further action by the State or the
Administrator,'' the General Preamble provides the following general
guidance: ``[s]tates must show that their contingency measures can be
implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no
additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative
review.'' General Preamble at 13512.\22\ Further, ``[i]n general, EPA
will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of the
measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its
failure.'' Id. The Addendum at 42015 reiterates this interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA elaborated on its interpretation of this language in
section 172(c)(9) in the General Preamble in the context of the
ozone standard: ``The EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as
notification of sources, modification of permits, etc., would
probably be needed before a measure could be implemented
effectively.'' General Preamble at 13512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also interpreted section 172(c)(9) to allow states to
implement contingency measures before they are triggered by a failure
of RFP or attainment as long as those measures are intended to achieve
emission reductions over and beyond those relied on in the attainment
and RFP demonstrations. Id.; see also, LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th
Cir. 2004). The 2012 Five Percent Plan calculated the target for
contingency measure reductions by subtracting the attainment year 2012
emissions (43,130 tons) from the 2007 baseline emissions (59,218 tons)
and dividing by five years, yielding a target of 3,218 tons per year.
2012 Five Percent Plan at 6-37. EPA proposes to find that this method
of calculating the target for contingency measure reductions is
consistent with CAA requirements and EPA guidance and we propose to
approve this target value for contingency measures.
    The contingency measures are shown in Table 6-22 of the 2012 Five
Percent Plan and are composed of various methods to reduce fugitive
dust emissions from roads. The most significant reductions are from
paving dirt roads and alleys; other reductions result from street
sweeping of freeways, ramps and frontage roads, lower speed limits on
dirt roads and alleys, and paving and stabilizing of unpaved shoulders.
The measures were implemented in the years 2008 through 2012. These
contingency measures are surplus to the measures used to demonstrate
five percent reductions, RFP, and attainment. The method used to
estimate emissions reductions from these contingency measures are
consistent with EPA recommended calculation methods for such measures
and the total reductions exceed the target of one year of RFP. EPA
proposes to approve the contingency measures described in the 2012 Five
Percent Plan.

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or the timely achievement of interim
milestones.
    The 2012 Five Percent Plan specifies the maximum transportation-
related PM-10 emissions allowed in the proposed attainment year, 2012,
i.e., the MVEB of 54.9 metric tons per day (mtpd). 2012 Five Percent
Plan at p. 6-43. This budget includes emissions from road construction,
vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear, dust generated from unpaved roads
and re-entrained dust from vehicles traveling on paved roads. This
budget is based on the 2012 emissions inventory that was projected from
the 2008 PM-10 Inventory and reflects emission reductions that the plan
expects will result from the control measures. The budget is consistent
with the attainment, five percent and RFP demonstrations in the Plan.
    On September 12, 2013, we announced receipt of the 2012 Five
Percent Plan on the Internet and requested public comment on the
adequacy of the MVEB by October 15, 2013. We did not receive any
comments during the comment period. During that time we reviewed the
MVEB and preliminarily determined that it met the adequacy criteria in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). We sent a letter to ADEQ and MAG dated
November 22, 2013 stating that the 2012 motor vehicle PM-10 emissions
budget for the Maricopa area in the submitted plan was adequate. Our
finding was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2013,
effective December 20, 2013. 78 FR 73188.
    Now that EPA has thoroughly reviewed the submitted SIP, we are
proposing to approve the MVEB for 2012 as part of our approval of the
2012 Five Percent Plan. EPA has determined that the MVEB emission
target is consistent with emission control measures in the SIP and the
attainment demonstration, five percent demonstration and RFP
demonstration. The details of EPA's evaluation of the MVEB for
compliance with the budget adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) is
provided in a separate document included in the docket of this
rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See ``Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review'' by Greg
Nudd, EPA Region 9, November 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Adequate Legal Authority

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Clean Air Act requires that
implementation plans provide necessary assurances that the state (or
the general purpose local government) will have adequate personnel,
funding and authority under state law. Requirements for legal authority
are further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart L (section 51.230-232)
and for resources in 40 CFR 51.280.
    States and responsible local agencies must demonstrate that they
have the legal authority to adopt and enforce provisions of the SIP and
to obtain information necessary to determine compliance. These
requirements are addressed in cover letters and submittal

package for the 2012 Five Percent Plan.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Completeness Determination Checklist (EPA, July 2,
2012) for details on the location of the documentation of authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAG derives its authority to develop and adopt air quality plans,
including the 2012 Five Percent Plan, from ARS 49-406 and from a
February 7, 1978 letter from the Governor of Arizona designating MAG as
responsible for those tasks.\25\ ADEQ is authorized to adopt and submit
the 2012 Five Percent Plan by ARS 49-404 and ARS 49-406. MCAQD
implements air quality programs within Maricopa County. Pinal County
Air Quality Control District implements air quality programs within
Pinal County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Letter from Wesley Bolin, Governor of Arizona, to Douglas
M. Costle, Administrator of EPA, February 7, 1978. 2012 Five Percent
Plan, Appendix E, Exh. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, we propose to find that the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) and related regulations have been
met with respect to legal authority.

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the 189(d) plan for the Maricopa County
(Phoenix) PM-10 nonattainment area. Specifically, we propose to approve
the following:
    (A) The 2008 baseline emissions inventory and the 2007, 2009, 2010,
2011 and 2012 projected emission inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3);
    (B) the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 189(d) and 179(d)(3);
    (C) the 5% demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(d);
    (D) the reasonable further progress and quantitative milestone
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and
189(c);
    (E) the contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9); and
    (F) the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget as compliant with the budget
adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal
approval of the SIP does not create any new requirements, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and
replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. However, even though EPA is acting on a State plan,
and that plan does not apply in Indian Country, there are four tribes
located within the PM-10 nonattainment area, several of which have
imposed particulate control measures of their own in order to reduce
PM-10 concentrations. EPA informed tribal environmental staff regarding
the proposed approval so that the tribes could inform their leadership
and participate in the public comment process if desired.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice
part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The
Executive Order has informed the development and implementation of
EPA's environmental justice program and policies. Consistent with the
Executive Order and the associated Presidential Memorandum, the
Agency's environmental justice policies promote environmental
protection by focusing attention and Agency efforts on addressing the
types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among
minority, low-income and Tribal populations.
    This action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or Tribal
populations because the action proposed increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population.

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 14, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-02574 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59160-59161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice on scientific,
technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding under
sections 503A and 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act), and, as required, any other product for which FDA has
regulatory responsibility, and make appropriate recommendations to the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 27, 2015, from 8
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on October 28, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    Contact Person: Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Background: Section 503A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353a) describes
the conditions that must be satisfied for human drug products
compounded by a licensed pharmacist or licensed physician to be exempt
from the following three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section
501(a)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good
manufacturing practice); (2) section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1))
(concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use);
and (3) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human
drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs)).
    The Drug Quality and Security Act adds a new section, 503B, to the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b) that creates a new category of ``outsourcing
facilities.'' Outsourcing facilities, as defined in section 503B of the
FD&C Act, are facilities that meet certain conditions described in
section 503B, including registration with FDA as an outsourcing
facility. If these conditions are satisfied, a drug product compounded
for human use by or under the direct supervision of a licensed
pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from three sections of
the FD&C Act: (1) Section 502(f)(1), (2) section 505, and (3) section
582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1), but not section 501(a)(2)(B).
    One of the conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for the
exemptions under both sections 503A and 503B of the FD&C Act is that
the drug that is compounded does not appear on a list published by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) of drugs that
have been withdrawn or removed from the market because such drug
products or components of such drug products have been found to be
unsafe or not effective (``withdrawn or removed list'') (see sections
503A(b)(1)(C) and 503B(a)(4) of the FD&C Act).
    Another condition that must be satisfied to qualify for the
exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act is that a bulk drug
substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient) used in a compounded drug
must meet one of the following criteria: (1) Complies with the
standards of an applicable United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) or
National Formulary monograph, if a monograph exists, and the USP
chapter on pharmacy compounding; (2) if an applicable monograph does
not exist, is a component of a drug approved by the Secretary; or (3)
if such a monograph does not exist and the drug substance is not a
component of a drug approved by the Secretary, appears on a list
(``section 503A bulk drug substances list'') developed by the Secretary
through regulations issued by the Secretary (see section
503A(b)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act).
    FDA will discuss with the committee drugs proposed for inclusion on
the withdrawn or removed list pursuant to sections 503A and 503B of the
FD&C Act and on the section 503A bulk drug substances list.
    Agenda: On October 27, 2015, during the morning session, the
committee will discuss a revision FDA is considering to the list of
drug products that may not be compounded under the exemptions provided
by the FD&C Act because the drug product has been withdrawn or removed
from the market because such drug product or such components of drug
products have been found to be unsafe or not effective. The list of
those drug products is currently codified at 21 CFR 216.24. FDA now is
considering whether to amend the regulation to add one more drug to the
list: Quinacrine: All drug products containing quinacrine for
intrauterine administration. As explained in the Federal Register of
July 2, 2014, (79 FR 37687 at 37689 through 37690), the list may
specify that a drug may not be compounded in any form, or,
alternatively, may expressly exclude a particular formulation,
indication, dosage form, or route of administration from an entry on
the list because an approved drug containing the same active
ingredient(s) has not been withdrawn or removed from the market.
Moreover, a drug may be listed only with regard to certain
formulations, indications, routes of administration, or dosage forms
because it has been found to be unsafe or not effective in those
particular formulations, indications, routes of administration, or
dosage forms. FDA plans to seek the committee's advice concerning the
inclusion of this drug product.
    On October 27, 2015, during the morning and afternoon sessions, the
committee will discuss six bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion
on the section 503A bulk drug substances

list. FDA intends to discuss the following nominated bulk drug
substances: Quinacrine hydrochloride, methylsulfonylmethane, curcumin,
germanium sesquioxide, rubidium chloride, and deoxy-D-glucose. The
nominators of these substances will be invited to make a short
presentation supporting the nomination.
    On October 28, 2015, during the morning and afternoon sessions, the
committee will discuss four bulk drug substances nominated for
inclusion on the section 503A bulk drug substances list. FDA intends to
discuss the following nominated bulk drug substances: Alanyl-L-
glutamine, glutaraldehyde, glycyrrhizin, and domperidone. Other
nominated substances will be discussed at future committee meetings.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 13, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 9:45 a.m. to 10 a.m., 1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m., and
4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on October 27, 2015, and between approximately
11 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on October 28, 2015.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
October 9, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by October 13,
2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-24834 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71123]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioners and Staff Attendance at FERC/NARUC
Collaborative on Smart Response Meeting

November 12, 2010.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission
staff may attend the following meeting: FERC/NARUC Collaborative on
Smart Response: Omni Hotel at CNN Center, 100 CNN Center, Atlanta, GA
30303. November 14, 2010 (8:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m.).
    Further information may be found at http://annual.narucmeetings.org/Program.cfm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29305 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85987-85990]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0713]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625--NEW

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for the
following new collection of information: 1625-NEW, State Registration
Data. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 30,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0713] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for

further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval
for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0713], and
must be received by January 30, 2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this Notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    The Coast Guard published a 60-day notice (79 FR 60483, October 7,
2014) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited five
public comment submissions.
    Comment (1): A requestor asks the Coast Guard to consider mandating
to states that personal watercraft (PWC) data collection is separately
maintained. This will ensure accuracy in the entirety of boat
classification data collection and significantly aid PWC manufacturers
in market assessment.
    Answer: The Coast Guard is maintaining the personal watercraft
category in our proposed data collection (see 33 CFR174.19(a)(11)); we
proposed to collect statistics on personal watercraft by length
category.
    Comment (2) is: A commenter stated that the Coast Guard's
tabulation of State numbered vessels as a result of this Information
Collection Request (ICR) cannot be used to measure risk as stated in
the supplemental Paperwork Reduction Act submission that accompanies
this ICR, especially since there are numerous recreational boating
accidents and fatalities that occur in vessels not required to be
numbered and not reflected in this collection of information.
    Answer: Information in the proposed collection will be used to
measure risk; Registration data frequently serves as the denominator of
fatality rates (usually expressed in number of deaths per 100,000
registered vessels). The existence of registration data allows the
Coast Guard to normalize data and provide meaningful statistics and
recommendations for the National Recreational Boating Safety (RBS)
Program. The revised collection proposed to break down registration by
motorization so that an additional measure, motorized vessel fatality
rate, could be used (number of deaths on motorized vessels per 100,000
motorized registered vessels). This measure would provide a much
sounder denominator since all States do not collect registration data
on non-motorized vessels.
    Comment (3) is: A commenter noted that in accordance with 33 CFR
174.123, each State that has an approved numbering system must prepare
and submit Coast Guard form CGHQ-3923, Report of Certificates of Number
Issued to Boats, to the Coast Guard. Although OMB No. 1625--NEW
reflects the revised vessel type terminology resulting from the Coast
Guard's 2012 issuance of the Final Rule on Changes to Standard
Numbering System, Vessel Identification System, and Boating Accident
Report Database (Docket No. USCG-2003-14963), it does not accurately
reflect the CFR's terminology in its title or instructions (i.e., all
references to the approved numbering system, state numbered boats and
certificates of number have been replaced with registrations and
registered).
    Answer: This is true. The proposed form focuses on registered
vessels, which allows the Coast Guard to examine a larger scope of
vessels that fall under the National Recreational Boating Safety
Program. The Coast Guard will consider changes to the form title in 33
CFR 174.123 to more accurately reflect the data collection under this
Information Collection Request.
    Comment (4) is: A commenter noted that OMB No. 1625--NEW is dated
June 2014, inferring that is already in use (or may be required for
use). Because States are currently in various stages of implementation
of the Final Rule (with final implementation required by January 1,
2017), States cannot be compelled to begin using OMB No. 1625--NEW
prior to January 1, 2017. Any required deviation from the use of CGHQ-
3923 prior to January 1, 2017 will result in additional (and in some
cases, significant) burden and cost to the States.
    Answer: The form is not in use. The June 2014 date was filled in as
a placeholder. The form was drafted and sent for comment early so that
the public could comment on the proposed content, and the States could
prepare for changes after the data collection is finalized. The form
will not be required for use prior to January 1, 2017.
    Comment (5) is: At this time, the state of Ohio is still in the
process of transitioning to the new requirements

cited in 33 CFR 174.19 (which we are required to implement by January
1, 2017). That being the case, what are the Coast Guard's intentions
with regard to the version of the reporting form we will need to use to
make our annual reporting in 2015 and beyond? Will we have the option
to use the ``older'' version of the reporting form until such time that
we have transitioned to the new requirements? And, if required to use
the new form prior to that transition, how will the Coast Guard view
any incomplete data that might not be able to be generated in the new
format prior to completion of the transition?
    Answer: The form will not be required for use prior to January 1,
2017.
    Comment (6) is: Knowing that hull type, and more importantly engine
drive information can be important details in better identifying and
understanding the boating demographics within a state, what is the
rationale for omitting this information in this revised collection
form?
    Answer: The Coast Guard has not used the hull material or engine
information collected in prior registration collections. Because we
have not used the data, we removed it from the form so as to reduce the
burden of data reporting on the States.
    Comment (7) is: Do the estimates of the form completion burden
account for any initial burden in transitioning to this revised
reporting scheme? What is the basis for estimates of burden in items 12
and 13 of the Supporting Statement for the collection?
    Answer: No. The burden estimate took into account the collection of
information, which is based on the number of respondents, frequency of
form submission and an estimate of the time taken to fill out the form.
    Comment (8) is: Is there any relationship between this revision and
anticipated efforts to bring CFR into agreement with the Uniform
Certificate of Titling Act for Vessels (UCOTA-V)?
    Answer: There is not a relationship between this revision and the
UCOTA-V efforts.
    Comment (9) is: Under Puerto Rico law, a Ship or vessel means any
system of transportation on water that has a motor installed,
including, but without been limited to jet skis, motorized rafts, power
sailboats, motor boats, or powered driven boats of any sort, including
homemade vessels powered by motor, but excluding hydroplanes. A
watercraft means a mode of transportation which does not have a motor
installed, such as rowboats, canoes, kayaks, sailboats with or without
oars, water skis, surfboards with or without sail, rafts, inflatable
systems, and any device that moves on the surface of the water without
being propelled by a motor, although it could be fit for installation
or adaptation of some type of motor. Therefore, the proposed change
creates an overburden of conflicting definitions or wording to deal
with in this case. Also, the removal of the proposed definitions leaves
the accident investigation protocol without proper wording to aid in
the determination of felonies, infractions, or misdemeanors committed.
    Answer: This comment is outside the scope of this Notice requesting
comments on this information collection. Please adhere to the
definitions in 33 CFR 173.3 for use in this information collection.
    Comment (10) is: SS173.57: Same comment as in the previous
paragraph. Mainly, when evaluating marine events involving either
vessels, watercrafts, or both. It may also affect the terms and
conditions of the memorandum of Agreement between the Government of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the USCG under 14 U.S.C. SS2,89,141; 46
CFR SS13109 and 33 CFR SS100.01 as to comply with 46 U.S.C. 13103(c)(2)
on the matter of marine events and boat accident reports procedures.
    Answer: This collection of information does not relate to marine
events or boat accident report procedures. Therefore, this comment is
outside the scope of this Notice requesting comments on the collection.
    Comment (11) is: The definitions in 33 CFR 181.3 do not include the
manufacturing of handmade vessels and is inconsistent with SS181.23(b).
It should include person engaged in the manufacture of a boat for his
or her own use (operation) and not for sale.
    Answer: This collection of information is for all registered
vessels. If a homemade vessel is registered, it should be included in
the statistics.
    Comment (12) is: If a state has already transitioned--or will soon
transition--its numbering system and the content of the certificates of
number over to the requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19 (i.e., before
the Jan. 1, 2017 implementation deadline), what version of the form is
it suppose to use? If, as a result of the ICR, the OMB formally
approves the collection and issues an OMB Control Number to this
revised form 3923 before the Jan. 1, 2017 deadline for states to
implement the new requirements, will a state that does not make the
transition until the deadline be able to submit its data on the ``old''
version of the form?
    Answer: The proposed form would not be required for use until
January 1, 2017. States would be asked to submit information on the
historic form. If a State has already transitioned to the new terms
ahead of the January 1, 2017 deadline, the Coast Guard will accept
registration data on either form.
    Comment (13) is: If there are variations in the version of the
forms employed by the states and submitted to the Coast Guard, how will
the Coast Guard reconcile those differences in the computation and
report-out of registration data?
    Answer: The Coast Guard will merge datasets if both the historic
and proposed forms are used.
    In addition to the above comments submitted to the docket, the
following comments and questions were received by Coast Guard program
staff members:
    Comment (14) is: Is this just the periodic request to approve the
continuation of the collection of registration data?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (15) is: Has the Notice been issued primarily (at this
time) as part of the process to get OMB to issue a control number?
    Answer: Yes.
    Comment (16) is: Is this in preparation for collection of
registration data under the ``new'' vessel terms authorized by the
Final Rule on State Numbering System (SNS), Vessel Identification
System (VIS), and Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) (eff. Jan
2017)?
    Answer: Yes. This form makes use of the ``primary operation'' and
``vessel type'' in 33 Code of Federal Regulation 174.19.
    Comment (17) is: Is there a revised collection form that will
accompany it?
    Answer: Yes. There is a revised collection form that is greatly
simplified. The proposed revision provides instructions, a breakdown of
recreational vessel types by motorization and length category, a
breakdown of commercial vessel types, and an administration section.
    Comment (18) is: Will there be any other supporting documentation
posted to regulations.gov for this Notice?
    Answer: Yes. Additional files were posted on October 17, 2014.
These include the proposed registration form and supporting statement.
    The Coast Guard is publishing an additional 60-day Notice for
public commenting due to the time that has elapsed since the initial
60-day Notice has published.

Information Collection Request

    Title: State Registration Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1625--NEW.

    Summary: This Notice provides information on the collection of
registration data from the State reporting authorities.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 12302 and 33 CFR 174.123 authorizes the
collection of this information.
    Forms: CG-3923, State Registration Data.
    Respondents: 56 State reporting authorities respond.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Hour Burden Estimate: This is a new information collection request.
The estimated burden is 42 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 22, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
 Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-28717 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P