[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16414-16416]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06464]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71751; File No. SR-OCC-2014-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make Administrative and Conforming Changes To Rename the Membership/
Risk Committee to Risk Committee, Reflect the Renaming of the Chairman
Title to Executive Chairman, and Reflect That Two Management Directors
Are on the Board of Directors

March 19, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 6, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) \4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to amend its By-Laws and Rules (collectively,
``Rules'') to make administrative and/or conforming rule changes to
reflect a proposal that (i) the ``Membership/Risk Committee'' would be
renamed to ``Risk Committee,'' (ii) the title of ``Chairman'' has been
replaced with the title of ``Executive Chairman'' and, (iii) two
Management Directors are members of OCC's Board of Directors
(``Board'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC filed, and the Commission approved, a proposed rule
change concerning the creation of the role of Executive Chairman.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70076 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR
47449 (August 5, 2013), (SR-OCC-2013-09). As part of SR-OCC-2013-09,
OCC (1) separated the powers and duties previously combined in the
office of Chairman into two offices, Executive Chairman and
President; and (2) provided that the President, by virtue of such
office, would be a Management Director. As a result, effective
January 1, 2014, two Management Directors (i.e., the Executive
Chairman and the President) are on the Board and the Board increased
in size by one member to a total of 19 directors.

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

    OCC also proposes to make conforming amendments to reflect the
renaming of the Membership/Risk Committee and the current title of
Executive Chairman, as applicable, to the following documents: The
Membership/Risk Committee Charter (``RC Charter''), the Performance
Committee Charter (``PC Charter'') and the Charter of OCC's Board of
Directors (``Board Charter'') as well as the Fitness Standards for
Directors, Clearing Members and Others (``Fitness Standards'') attached
thereto.\6\ Additional conforming amendments are being made to the RC
Charter, the PC Charter and the Board Charter (including the Fitness
Standards) to further reflect the governance changes described in
footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OCC filed, and the Commission approved, certain clarifying
amendments to the RC Charter and the PC Charter. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71627 (February 27, 2014), 79 FR 12538
(March 5, 2014), (SR-OCC-2014-01). The RC Charter, PC Charter and
Board Charter were initially approved by the Commission on December
6, 2013. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71022 (December 6,
2013), 78 FR 75659 (December 12, 2013), (SR-OCC-2013-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    As discussed below, the purpose of this rule filing is to make
administrative and/or conforming amendments to the Rules and to the
charters of the Board and certain of its committees. These technical
amendments reflect that: (1) The Membership/Risk Committee of the Board
is proposed to be renamed to the Risk Committee; (2) the title of
``Executive Chairman'' has replaced the title of ``Chairman;'' and (3)
two Management Directors are members of the Board. Other conforming
amendments are proposed as well.
Risk Committee Name Change
    OCC's Membership/Risk Committee is a committee of OCC's Board. The
purpose of this committee, as stated in its charter, is to assist the
Board in overseeing OCC's policies and processes for identifying and
addressing strategic, operational and financial risks. OCC believes
that the name ``Risk Committee'' more accurately reflects this purpose
and is more commonly used for this type of committee by other
organizations in the financial industry. The role the committee plays
in assisting the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities, as described
in OCC's Rules and the RC Charter, as well as the specific policies and
procedures governing the membership and organization, scope of
authority and specific functions and responsibilities of the committee
has not changed. Accordingly, OCC proposes that existing references to
Membership/Risk Committee would be replaced with Risk Committee in its
Rules, the RC Charter and Board Charter (including the Fitness
Standards).
Executive Chairman Name Change; Number of Management Directors
    On January 1, 2014, OCC implemented an approved change in its
governance structure that: (1) Split the role of Chairman into two
offices, the Executive Chairman and President; and (2) provided that
the President, by virtue of election to that office, became a
Management Director.\7\ OCC's Rules and the charters of the Board
(including the Fitness Standards) and certain of its committees contain
numerous references to the term ``Chairman.'' \8\ OCC proposes to
replace existing references to Chairman with Executive Chairman in its
Rules, the RC Charter, the PC Charter and the Board Charter (including
the Fitness Standards). In connection with making such updates, OCC
identified instances in which additional conforming changes to the
Rules and charters of the Board and certain of its committees were
necessary to reflect that there are now two Management Directors
serving on OCC's Board.\9\ (As defined in OCC's By-Laws, the Executive
Chairman and the President both are Management Directors.) The division
of responsibility between the Executive Chairman and the President, as
set forth in the By-Laws, is not affected by any of the proposed
changes, which OCC believes increases the transparency of its
governance arrangements by appropriately reflecting the title of the
Executive Chairman and the number of Management Directors on its Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
    \8\ These provisions typically define the Chairman's authority
to take certain actions in certain circumstances. For example,
Article III, Section 14 of OCC's By-Laws provides the Chairman with
authority to call special Board meetings and OCC Rule 505 provides
that the Chairman can extend the times that OCC is obligated to pay
settlement amounts to clearing members.
    \9\ Supra note 5. The proposed changes to OCC By-Laws Article
VIIA, Section 3 will correct an administrative oversight in filing
SR-OCC-2013-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Statutory Basis
    OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \10\ because it will help ensure that
OCC's governance structure is designed to protect investors and the
public interest. The name ``Risk Committee'' more accurately reflects
the role and function of the Membership/Risk Committee and the title
``Executive Chairman'' more accurately reflects OCC's current
governance structure. All other changes are made for comparable
reasons. The proposed, administrative, rule change will promote, as
required under Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8), a clear and transparent governance
structure that will fulfill the public interests requirements in
Section 17A of the Act, support the objectives of OCC's owners and
participants, and promote the effectiveness of OCC's risk management
procedures.\11\ The proposed rule change will also ensure that OCC's
Rules, the RC Charter, the PC Charter and the Board Charter (including
the Fitness Standards) remain accurate. The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with any rules of OCC, including those proposed to be
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\12\ This proposed rule change
will help ensure that OCC meets regulatory requirements that it has a
clear and transparent governance structure by updating its Rules to
reflect the adoption of a name for the Membership/Risk Committee that
more accurately reflects its role and function at OCC as well as update
OCC's Rules to reflect its current governance structure. To the extent
OCC's clearing members are affected by the proposed rule change, OCC
believes that, by adopting a more descriptive name for the Membership/
Risk Committee and updating OCC's Rules to reflect is current
governance structure, all of its participants will have greater
certainty concerning OCC's governance

arrangements and that such clarifications will facilitate the prompt
and accurate settlement of securities transactions because OCC's Rules
will be more accurate, transparent and readable. Accordingly, OCC does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) \14\ thereunder, the proposed rule change is filed for
immediate effectiveness as it solely concerns the administration of
OCC. As described above, both the proposal to rename the Membership/
Risk Committee to ``Risk Committee'' as well as the proposal to update
OCC's Rules to reflect the title of Executive Chairman and the number
of Management Directors on its Board are administrative in nature.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, implementation of this rule change will
be delayed until this rule change is deemed certified under CFTC
Regulation Sec.  40.6. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2014-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC
and on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_04.pdf. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-04 and
should be submitted on or before April 15, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06464 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8079]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
for Land Disposal at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport (LBL),
Liberal, Kansas.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release and sale of two parcels of land at the Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport (LBL), Liberal, Kansas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Lynn Koehn, The Koehn Law Firm, L.L.C., 217 N
Washington, Liberal, KS 67901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 4.28 acres of airport property at the
Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport (LBL) under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The Airport Sponsor has requested from the FAA that
two parcels of land for a combined 4.28 acres of property be released
for sale to the City of Liberal Water Department. The FAA determined
the request to release and sell property at Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport (LBL) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release and
sale of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs
at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part,
no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport (LBL) is proposing the release
and sale of two parcels of airport property, totaling 4.28 acres. The
release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation
Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired
airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the
subject property will result in the release of land and surface rights
at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport (LBL) from the conditions
of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances, but retaining the mineral
rights. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the
airport will receive fair market value and the property will be used as
a water reservoir and warehouse by the City of Liberal Water
Department.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, request an appointment and inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 20, 2021.
James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-02109 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24155-24156]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0321]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently
Approved Information Collection Request: Generic Clearance of Customer
Satisfaction Surveys

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The Executive Order
directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches
or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order
to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet
our customers' needs, the FMCSA seeks to obtain OMB approval of a
currently approved generic clearance to collect feedback on our service
delivery. By feedback, we mean information that provides useful
insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys
that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the
population of study. On January 19, 2018, FMCSA published a notice in
the Federal Register allowing for a 60-day comment period on this ICR.
The Agency received one comment in response to the notice. The comment
was unrelated to the information collection. Therefore, no agency
response was necessary.

DATES: Please send your comments by June 25, 2018. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0321. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Roxane Oliver, FMCSA, Office of
Analysis, Research and Technology, Analysis Division/MC-RRA. Telephone
(202) 385-2324; or email [email protected]. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Generic Clearance of Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0061.
    Type of Request: Renewal of currently approved collection.
    Respondents: State and local agencies; general public and
stakeholders; original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and suppliers to
the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) industry; fleets, owner-operators,
state CMV safety agencies, research organizations and contractors; news
organizations, safety advocacy groups; and other Federal agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,900 [5,000 customer satisfaction
survey respondents + 100 listening sessions/stakeholder feedback forums
respondents + 300 focus group respondents + 500 strategic planning
customer satisfaction survey respondents].
    Estimated Time per Response: Range from 10-120 minutes per
response.
    Expiration Date: July 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: Generally, on an annual basis.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,758 hours [833 hours for customer
satisfaction surveys + 200 hours for listening sessions/stakeholder
feedback forums + 600 hours for focus groups + 125 hours for strategic
planning customer satisfaction surveys].
    Background: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
FMCSA invites public comments about our intention to request the OMB
approval to renew a previously approved information collection.
Executive Order 12862 Setting Customer Service Standards, and most
recently updated in Executive Order 13571, requires the Federal
Government to provide the ``highest quality service possible to the
American people.'' Under the order, the ``standard of quality for
services provided to the public shall be: Customer service equal to the
best in business.'' In order to work continuously to ensure that our
programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, FMCSA seeks to
obtain OMB approval of a currently approved generic clearance to
collect qualitative feedback from our customers on our service
delivery. The surveys covered in this generic clearance will provide a
means for FMCSA to collect this data directly from our customers. By
qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights
on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield
quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of
study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder
perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of
issues with service, or focus attention on areas of communication,
training or changes in operations that might improve delivery of
products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing,
collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its
customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of

service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this
information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if the collections are:
     Voluntary;
     Low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of
total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per
respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal
Government;
     Noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to
other Federal agencies;
     Targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents
who have experience with the program or may have experience with the
program in the near future;
     Only collecting personally identifiable information (PII)
to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Only collecting information intended to be used internally
for general service improvement and program management, and any release
outside the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information;
     Not to be used for the purpose of substantially informing
influential policy decisions; and
     Intended to yield only qualitative information; the
collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalized to the
population of study.
    This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not
be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to
yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time
or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more
rigorous designs that address: The target population to which
generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design
(including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements
or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the
expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse
bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures
that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending
on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such
collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic
mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. As a
general matter, information collections will not result in any new
system of records containing privacy information and will not ask
questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes,
religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: May 16,
2018.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-11128 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51924-51925]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0029; OMB No. 1660-0141]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Controlled Equipment Request Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer
for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2016, at 81 FR
32769, with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Controlled Equipment Request Form.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0141.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 087-0-0-1, Controlled Equipment
Request Form.
    Abstract: This form was developed to collect required information
as part of the implementation of Executive Order 13688: Federal Support
for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, issued January 16,
2015, which established a Prohibited Equipment List and a Controlled
Equipment List and identified actions that can improve Federal support
for the appropriate use, acquisition, and transfer of controlled
equipment by state, local, tribal, territorial, and private grant
recipients.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, Local, or
Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 175.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 131 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $3,877.60. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$759.40.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-18640 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 1990-1992]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1002; FRL-8110-6]

Antimycin A Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability, and Risk
Reduction Options

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk
assessments, and related documents for the pesticide antimycin A, and
opens a public comment period on these documents. The public is
encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the
risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) for antimycin A through a modified, 4-Phase public
participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in
developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1002, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-1002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Wormell, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and
environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents
for antimycin A and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas
or proposals. Antimycin A is a restricted use pesticide derived as a
fermentation product from Streptomyces mold. The chemical is primarily
used to renovate recreational fish populations and to remove scaled
fish from catfish fingerling and food-fish production ponds. Over the
past decade antimycin has been used successfully to restore Federally-
listed, threatened or endangered fish to their native habitats. EPA
developed the risk assessments and risk characterization for antimycin
A through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide
reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions.
Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current
standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
    EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for
interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk
assessments for antimycin A. Such comments and input could address, for
example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk
assessments, such as environmental fate data or residue (i.e., the
amount of antimycin A in treated fish) data, or could address the
Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to
this specific pesticide.
    Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for
interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise
comment on risk management for antimycin A. In particular, EPA seeks
public input on potential strategies to prevent human exposure and to
reduce the uncertainties regarding the chemical's environmental fate
and ecological effects. EPA is working with the technical registrant
and other Federal agencies to develop a rigorous use (standard
operating procedures) manual for both fish restoration and catfish
uses. The manual would be part of the labeling required by the RED and
would require users to follow the procedures specified therein. The
manual is intended to ensure the responsible use of antimycin A in
targeted treatment areas and minimize mortality to non-target species.
It is EPA's expectation that proper use through a detailed manual and
revised product label will virtually eliminate recreational (e.g.,
swimming) exposure, drinking water exposure, and exposure from
consuming treated fish. The manual will also ensure minimal exposure to
workers. In addition, efforts to develop an analytical detection method
and identify potential routes of degradation are currently underway by
the U. S. Geological Survey, EPA's Office of Research and Development,
and EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs' Biologic and Economic
Assessment Division laboratories. In targeting these uncertainties, the
Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction
measures.
    EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical, unusually high exposure to antimycin A, compared to the
general population.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these
programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to
be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each
pesticide. For antimycin A, a modified, 4-Phase process with one
comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems
appropriate in view of its limited use and small number of users.
However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period
EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are
raised, the Agency may

lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed.
    All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES,
and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments
will become part of the Agency Docket for antimycin A. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''
    Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to
review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of
August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review
is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 3, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-411 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19921-19923]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0277; FRL-9137-9]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern opacity standards
related to multiple pollutants, including particulate matter (PM)
emissions from several different types of sources, ranging from
fugitive dust to diesel generators. We are approving a local rule that
regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0277], by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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 http://
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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 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 http://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: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule
                Local agency                   number             Rule title              Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD......................................        300  Visible Emissions.............     03/12/08     07/10/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 13, 2009, EPA determined this rule met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On April 12, 1982, EPA approved a previous version of Rule 300
(Rule 30) into the SIP. Please see 47 FR 15579. The MCAQD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on July 13, 1988 and ADEQ
submitted them to us on January 4, 1990. However, EPA did not take
action on this submittal. MCAQD also revised Rule 300 on August 5, 1994
and February 7, 2001, but did not submit these versions to EPA. While
we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have
reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions.
    MCAQD Rule 300 is designed to limit the emissions of particulate
matter or other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen from a variety of
activities and sources using a 20% opacity standard. These sources may
include construction sites, unpaved roads, disturbed soil in open
areas, and power plants. MCAQD amended Rule 300 to change the opacity
limit from 40% to 20% and change the procedure for determining
compliance with the 20% opacity limitation from ``averaging to
aggregating.'' The rule was also renumbered from Rule 30 to Rule 300,
reformatted, and 4 exceptions were added. EPA's technical support
document (TSD) has more information about this submitted rule and its
revisions.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The MCAQD regulates a PM nonattainment area
classified as serious (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 300 must implement
RACM and BACM.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``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); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``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).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, and SIP relaxations. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes several rule revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the rule, but that are not
currently the basis for disapproval of the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 1, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-8764 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0712; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware;
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 2002 Base Year Inventory, Reasonably
Available Control Measures, Contingency Measures, and Transportation
Conformity Budgets for the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia 1997
8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Delaware portion of the
Philadelphia 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area.  EPA is also
proposing to approve the RFP motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs),
the 2002 base year emissions inventory, contingency measures, and the
reasonably available control measure (RACM) analysis associated with
this revision.  EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision because it
satisfies RFP, emissions inventory, contingency measures, RFP
transportation conformity, and RACM requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and demonstrates further progress in reducing
ozone precursors.  EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision pursuant
to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA’s regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0712 by one of the following methods:

A.  www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B.  E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

C.  Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0712, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.  Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0712.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.  If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the
use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   Throughout this document, whenever
“we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

The following is provided to aid in locating information in this
document.

I.    What Action is EPA Taking?

II.   What is the Background of This Action?

III.  What is EPA’s Evaluation of the Revision?

IV.  What are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

I.  What Action is EPA Taking?

EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware SIP submitted by
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) on June 13, 2007, to meet the emissions inventory and RFP
requirements of the CAA for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia
1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area.  EPA is proposing to
approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the 15 percent RFP plan,
the RFP 2008 MVEBs, contingency measures, and RACM analysis.  The RFP
plan demonstrates that emissions will be reduced 15 percent for the
period of 2002 through 2008.  The volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEBs
is 21.84 tons per day (tpd) and the nitrogen oxides (NOx) MVEBs is 43.89
tpd.  EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision pursuant to section
110 and part D of the CAA and EPA regulations.

II.  What is the Background for This Action?

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at
0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame.  EPA
set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating
that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations
and over longer periods of time, than was understood when the
pre-existing

1-hour ozone standard was set.  EPA determined that the 8-hour standard
would be more protective of human health, especially children and adults
who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its
attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with
respect to the 8-hour ozone standard.  These actions became effective on
June 15, 2004.  Among those nonattainment areas is the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE) moderate
nonattainment area (NAA).  This NAA includes the three counties in
Delaware, five counties in eastern Pennsylvania, one county in Maryland
and eight counties in southern New Jersey.

These designations triggered the CAA’s section 110(a)(1) requirement
that States must submit attainment demonstrations for their
nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than three years after the
promulgation of a NAAQS.  Accordingly, EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (Phase 1 rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951) specifies that States must submit attainment demonstrations for
their nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than three years from the
effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.

Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart 2 of
the CAA based on its

8-hour design value if that area had a 1-hour design value at or above
0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2).
Based on this criterion, Delaware, as part of the Philadelphia
nonattainment area was classified under subpart 2 as a moderate
nonattainment area. On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on
June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31727), EPA published the Phase 2 final rule for
implementation of the 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule) that addressed the
RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The Phase 1 and 2 rules
outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in
areas designated as moderate nonattainment.  For such areas, reasonably
available control technology (RACT) plans were due by September 2006 (40
CFR 51.912(a)(2)).  The rules further require that modeling and
attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, RACM, projection year emission
inventories, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures
were all due by June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an emissions
inventory and RFP Plan, for review and approval into its SIP, that
describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC
and NOx from a baseline emissions inventory.

III.  What is EPA’s Evaluation of the Revision?

EPA’s analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking
and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical Support
Document for this Proposal which is available on line at   HYPERLINK
"www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , Docket number
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0712.

After completing the appropriate public notice and comment procedures,
Delaware made several submittals in order to address the CAA’s 8-hour
ozone attainment requirements.  On October 2, 2006, Delaware submitted a
RACT SIP revision which certifies that all relevant RACT controls have
been implemented in Delaware for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA approved Delaware’s 8-hour RACT SIP revision on July 23, 2008 (73
FR 42681).  On May 2, 2007, Delaware submitted a new VOC control from
crude oil lightering operations.  EPA approved this rule on September
13, 2007 (72 FR 52285).  On June 13, 2007, Delaware submitted a
comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIP.  The SIP submittal included an
attainment demonstration plan, RFP plans for 2008 and 2009, RACM
analysis, contingency measures, on-road motor vehicle emission budgets,
and the 2002 base year emissions inventory.  These SIP revisions were
subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the
comments received on the proposed SIPs.  All sections of this SIP
submittal with the exception of the attainment demonstration plan will
be discussed in this rulemaking.  The attainment demonstration plan
sections of this SIP submittal will be discussed in a separate
rulemaking.

A.  Base Year Emissions Inventory

An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory
of actual emissions from all sources and is required by section
172(c)(3) of the CAA.  For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions
inventory needs to contain VOC and NOx emissions because these
pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.  EPA recommended 2002 as
the base year emissions inventory, and is therefore the starting point
for calculating RFP.  Delaware submitted its 2002 base year emissions
inventory on June 13, 2007.  A summary of the 2002 base year VOC and NOx
emissions inventory, in tons per day (tpd), are included in Tables 1 and
2 of this document.

Table 1.  Delaware 2002 Base Year VOC Emissions

Source Sector	Kent	New Castle	Sussex	State Total

Point	0.49	  9.42	13.35	23.26

Stationary Area 	5.75	20.02	  7.31	33.08

Non-Road Mobile	5.17	12.24	  9.36	26.77

On-Road Mobile	5.45	16.98	  9.95	32.38

Total Emissions	      16.86	58.66	39.97	       115.49

Table 2.  Delaware 2002 Base Year NOx Emissions

Source Sector	Kent	New Castle	Sussex	State Total

Point	  5.06	 44.09	 24.95	74.10

Stationary Area 	  0.45	   1.95	   0.77	  3.17

Non-Road Mobile	15.02	24.62	 13.15	52.79

On-Road Mobile	13.97	36.56	 18.50	69.03

Total Emissions	34.50	        107.22	 57.37	       199.09

B.  Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels

The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the RFP
reductions are calculated, is described in section 182(b)(1) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 51.910.  This baseline value has been determined to be the
2002 adjusted base year inventory.  Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D)
require the exclusion from the base year inventory of emissions benefits
resulting from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) regulations promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666).  The FMVCP
and RVP emissions reductions are determined by the State using EPA’s
on-road mobile source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6.  The FMVCP
and RVP emission reductions are then removed from the base year
inventory by the State, resulting in an adjusted base year inventory.
The emission reductions needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then
calculated from the adjusted base year inventory.  These reductions are
then subtracted from the adjusted base year inventory to establish the
emissions target for the RFP milestone year (2008).

For moderate areas like the Philadelphia nonattainment area, the CAA
specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an
initial six year period.  In the Phase 2 rule, EPA interpreted this
requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone standard.  Also in
the Phase 2 rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or
higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed
of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a 15
percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have met the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS.  In
this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under
section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years
after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2).  The RFP SIP revision must provide
for a 15 percent emission reduction (either NOx and/or VOC) accounting
for any growth that occurs during the six year period following the
baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.  The sections 182
and 172 requirements differ in that section 182(b)(1) specifies that it
must be a 15 percent VOC reduction, where section 172(c)(2) provides
that the 15 percent reduction can be either a VOC and/or NOx reduction.

According to EPA’s Phase 2 rule, Delaware must achieve 15 percent VOC
emission reduction in Sussex County from its 2002 baseline level, and 15
percent VOC and/or NOx emission reduction in Kent and New Castle
Counties from their combined 2002 baseline level before the end of 2008.

According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions that
resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990 are not
creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions.  Therefore, the 2002
base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and NOX emission
reductions that are expected to occur between 2002 and the future
milestone years due to the FMVCP and RVP rules.  The FMVCP/RVP VOC and
NOx emission reductions that are expected to occur between 2002 and 2008
were determined using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model. The input and output
files for MOBILE6.2 runs for the adjustments, the emission factors
generated, and the calculations for emission projections are found in
Appendix 4-1 of the Delaware SIP submittal.  The adjustments, in tpd,
are presented in Table 3 for Sussex County and Table 4 for Kent and New
Castle Counties.

Table 3.  Mobile Source FMVCP/RVP Adjustments for Sussex County

Adjusted On-Road Mobile Source Emissions	VOC	NOx	Note

Adjusted for 2002	16.66	20.24	A

Adjusted for 2008	15.51	18.81	B2008

Mobile Source Adjustments for 2002 Baseline

	 2002 – 2008 	  1.15	  1.42	C2008 = A - B2008

Table 4.  Mobile Source FMVCP/RVP Adjustments for Kent and New Castle
Counties

Adjusted On-Road Mobile Source Emissions	VOC	NOx	Note

Adjusted for 2002	 42.16	56.02	a

Adjusted for 2008	 39.18	51.64	b2008

Mobile Source Adjustments for 2002 Baseline

	2002 – 2008 	2.98	4.38	c2008 = a – b2008

The mobile source adjustments in Tables 3 and 4 are the non-creditable
emission reductions due to the pre-1990 FMVCP and RVP rules.
Subtracting these adjustments from the 2002 base year emissions
inventory (i.e., the State total emissions in Tables 1 and 2) will give
the 2002 adjusted base year emissions inventory relative to the subject
milestone year, as presented in Table 5 for Sussex County and Table 6
for Kent and New Castle Counties.

Table 5.  The 2002 Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory for Sussex
County

	VOC	NOx	Note

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory	39.97	57.37	E

Mobile Source Adjustments for 2002-2008	  1.15	  1.42	C2008

2002 Adjusted Baseline Relative to 2008	38.82	55.95	F2008 = E – C2008

Table 6.  The 2002 Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory for Kent and
New Castle Counties

	VOC	NOx	Note

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory	  75.52	141.72	e

Mobile Source Adjustments for 2002-2008	  2.98	    4.38	c2008

2002 Adjusted Baseline Relative to 2008	72.54 	137.34	f2008 = e –
c2008

By the end of 2008, Delaware is required to reduce 15 percent in its
2002 adjusted base year emissions inventory.  According to the Phase 2
rule, Sussex County must achieve this 15 percent reduction in its VOC
emission, since it did not have a 15 percent VOC rate-of-progress plan
approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone standard.  For Kent and New
Castle Counties, their 15 percent emission reductions can be achieved
form VOC emissions and/or from NOx emissions.

The 15 percent VOC emission reduction and emission target in 2008 in
Sussex County are calculated as follows:

Sussex 2002 adjusted VOC baseline relative to 2008 is 38.82 tpd.

Required 15 percent emission reduction:  38.82 X 15 percent = 5.82 tpd.

2008 VOC emission target:  38.83 – 5.82 = 33.00 tpd.

The 15 percent VOC emission reduction and emission target in 2008 in
Kent and New Castle Counties are calculated as follows:

Kent/New Castle 2002 adjusted VOC baseline relative to 2008 is 72.54
tpd.

Required 15 percent emission reduction:  72.54 X 15 percent = 10.88 tpd.

2008 VOC emission target:  72.54 – 10.88 = 61.66 tpd.

C.  Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

The only post-2002 point source VOC control in Sussex County is
Regulation No. 24, Section 46, Control of Crude Oil Lightering
Operations.  Since there will be no new VOC controls for point sources,
non-point source sector, and non-road mobile source sector for VOC
emissions between 2008 and 2009, Delaware’s 2008 emission reductions
and projections are estimated by interpolating the 2002 base year
emissions and the 2009 projections.  Kent and New Castle Counties
applied for and obtained total VOC and NOx emission reductions from
facility/unit shutdown or modification.  The 2008 on-road mobile source
VOC emissions were projected using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 for obtaining
factors and the Peninsula Travel Demand Model (PTDM) for predicting
future vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  Tables 7 and 8 summarize the total
2008 VOC emission projections, in tpd, for the RFP requirements for
Sussex County and Kent/New Castle Counties, respectively.

Table 7.  Sussex County Total VOC Emission Projection (tpd)

Point Source Sector	10.71

Area Source Sector	  6.32

Non-Road Mobile Sector	  8.01

On-Road Mobile Sector	  7.09

Total 2008 Emission Projection	32.13

The total VOC emission projection meets the 2008 emission target under
the 15 percent RFP requirements (33.00 tpd).  Therefore, the 2008 RFP in
Sussex County is demonstrated.

Table 8.  Kent and New Castle Counties Total VOC Emission Projection
(tpd)

Point Source Sector	10.51

Area Source Sector	21.64

Non-Road Mobile Sector	13.81

On-Road Mobile Sector	14.75

Total 2008 Emission Projection	60.71

The total VOC emission projection meets the 2008 emission target under
the 15 percent RFP requirements (61.66 tpd).  Therefore, the 2008 RFP in
Kent and New Castle Counties is demonstrated.

D.  Contingency Measures

The CAA requires States with nonattainment areas to implement specific
control measures if the area fails to make reasonable further progress.
This CAA provision is a requirement for States with moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency measures in
their RFP so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional
emission reductions of at least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002 baseline
emissions would be achieved.  Under the same provision of the CAA, EPA
also requires that the contingency measures must be fully adopted
control measures or rules, so that upon failure to meet milestone
requirements, the contingency measures can be implemented without any
further rulemaking activities by the States and/or EPA.  For more
information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General
Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (70 FR 71612).

To meet the requirements for contingency emission reductions, EPA allows
States to use NOx emission reductions to substitute for VOC emission
reductions in their contingency plans.  The condition set forth by EPA
for NOx substitution is that States must achieve a minimum of 0.3 VOC
reductions of the total 3 percent contingency reduction, and the
remaining 2.7 percent reduction can be achieved through NOx emission
controls.  Delaware included both VOC and NOx emission controls as
contingency measures in this 8-hour ozone RFP.

Based on the CAA and EPA requirements on contingency measures, the
contingency VOC reduction for Delaware for the 2008 milestone year is as
follows:  the 2002 VOC baseline (statewide) adjusted to 2008 (see Tables
6 and 7 in this document) is 111.36 tpd, therefore, contingency VOC
emission reduction in 2008 is 111.36 multiplied by 3 percent = 3.34 tpd.

Analysis in Chapter 5.5, page 29 of the Delaware SIP, indicates that the
three counties in Delaware will have a VOC emission reduction surplus of
1.82 tpd in 2008 [i.e., (33.00 + 61.66) – (32.13 + 60.71) = (94.66 –
92.84) = 1.82].  Therefore there is 3.34 – 1.82 = 1.52 tpd contingency
VOC reduction shortfall in 2008.

Delaware’s 2002 VOC-to-NOx baseline (with respect to 2008) ratio is
(38.82 + 72.54): (55.95 + 137.34) = 111.36:193.29 = 1:1.74 (Section 4,
Tables 4-3 and 4-4 in the Delaware SIP).  Therefore, the contingency VOC
reduction shortfall is equivalent to 1.52 x 1.74 = 2.64 tpd NOx
reduction shortfall.

Delaware has implemented numerous controls leading to NOx reductions in
2008 that are greater than the identified 2.64 contingency shortfall
(see subsections 5.4 and 6.4 of the Delaware SIP).  Therefore, there is
no need to specify additional contingency measures for the 2008
milestone year.

E.  RACM Analysis

Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, States are required to
implement all RACM as expeditiously as practicable.  Specifically,
section 172(c)(1) states the following: “In general – Such plan
provisions shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.”

Furthermore, in EPA’s Phase 2 rule, EPA describes how States must
include with their attainment demonstration a RACM analysis (70 FR
71659).  The purpose of the RACM analysis is to determine whether or not
reasonably available control measures exist that would advance the
attainment date for nonattainment areas.  Control measures that would
advance the attainment date are considered RACM and must be included in
the SIP.  RACM are necessary to ensure that the attainment date is
achieved “as expeditious as practicable.”

Control measures under RACT constitute a major group of RACM control
measures for stationary sources. To meet the CAA’s RACT requirements
under the 8-hour ozone standard, Delaware submitted a RACT SIP revision
on October 2, 2006, which certifies that all relevant RACT controls have
been implemented in Delaware for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA approved Delaware’s 8-hour RACT SIP revision on July 23, 2008 (73
FR 42681).  On May 2, 2007, Delaware submitted a new VOC control from
crude oil lightering operations.  EPA approved this rule on September
13, 2007 (72 FR 52285).  In addition to those RACT control measures,
Delaware adopted a number of other VOC and NOx RACM measures.  These
measures include the tightening of Delaware’s Open Burning Regulation,
Control of Stationary Generator Emissions, restrictions on Excessive
Idling of Heavy Duty Vehicles, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine
Emissions, and the Brandywine School Districts Clean School Bus USA
grant, and voluntary and mandatory Ozone Action Day initiatives.  There
are no additional RACM measures or group of RACM measures that Delaware
could adopt to advance the attainment date from 2009 to 2008, therefore
Delaware has met the RACM requirements of the CAA.

F.  Transportation Conformity Budgets

Section 176 of the CAA requires that highway transportation activities
in ozone nonattainment areas must:  (1) establish in their SIP, mobile
source VOC and NOx emission budgets for each of the milestone years up
to the attainment year and submit the mobile budgets to EPA for
approval; (2) upon adequacy determination or approval of EPA, States
must conduct transportation conformity analysis for their Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long range transportation plans to
ensure highway vehicle emissions will not exceed relevant mobile
budgets; and (3) failure of demonstrating such transportation conformity
lapses resulting in freezing of Federal highway funds and all Federal
highway projects in the lapsed area.

The mobile emission budgets for 2008 RFP milestone are based on the
projected 2008 mobile source emissions, accounting for all relevant
mobile source controls including all Federal controls and Delaware
specific controls.  The 2008 mobile emissions are projected using
EPA’s MOBILE6.2 for obtaining emission factors and the “Peninsula
Travel Demand Model” for predicting future VMT.  Table 9 is a summary
of the 2008 VOC and NOx motor vehicle emissions budgets for the three
counties in Delaware.

Table 9.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 2008

County	FIPS	2008 Emissions (tpd)

VOC	NOx

Kent	10001	  4.14	  9.68

New Castle	10003	10.61	21.35

Sussex	10005	  7.09	12.86

State Total

21.84	43.89

On March 21, 2008, EPA posted the availability of these budgets for
Delaware on EPA’s conformity website for the purpose of soliciting
public comments.  The public comment period closed on April 21, 2008 and
no comments were received.  On December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77682), EPA
published a notice of adequacy for the Delaware 2008 RFP MVEBs.  In this
notice, EPA found that Delaware’s RFP MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.  As a result of EPA’s finding,
Delaware shall use the MVEBs from the June 13, 2007 RFP plan for future
conformity determinations for the 8-hour standard.

V.  What are EPA's Conclusions?

EPA is proposing approval of the Delaware’s SIP revision to meet the
RFP requirements of the CAA for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia
1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area.  EPA is also proposing
approval of the RFP MVEBs, the 2002 base year emissions inventory,
contingency measures, and RACM analysis associated with this revision.
EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision because it satisfies RFP,
emissions inventory, RFP transportation conformity, contingency
measures, and RACM requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate and demonstrates further progress in
reducing ozone precursors.

VI.  What are Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
CAA; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to Delaware’s RFP Plan,
2002 base year emissions inventory, contingency measures, RACM analysis,
and transportation conformity budgets, does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

William C. Early, Acting

Regional Administrator

____January 6, 2010_____________         	____________________________

Dated:                                                      	Shawn M.
Garvin,

Regional Administrator,

                                                                 	Region
III.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  21