	Served: July 16, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

BTS WEBSITE AVAILABLE,

DOCKETS 2003-14694 AND 14695

NOTICE

The Bureau of Traffic Statistics (BTS) Website showing T-100 Segment and
T-100 Market results by month for every reporting Intra-Alaska carrier
starting with July 2002 is now on the web.  The website is   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bts.gov"  www.bts.gov .  We anticipate that ultimately, the
data on this website will be the basis for the Postal Service’s tender
of mail and the Department’s determination of mail rates in the
upcoming implementation of the Rural Service Improvement Act.  As such
it is critical for every carrier to review carefully as to completeness
(whether its data is reported for a particular month) and accuracy.

#


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73765-73769]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0097]

Pilot Project on NAFTA Trucking Provisions

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

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces and requests public comment on data and
information concerning the Pre-Authorization Safety Audits (PASAs) for
motor carriers that have applied to participate in the Agency's long-
haul pilot program to test and demonstrate the ability of Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers to operate safely in the United States beyond
the municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico
international border or the commercial zones of such municipalities.
This action is required by the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007''
and all subsequent appropriations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by FDMS Docket Number
FMCSA-2011-0097 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Ground Floor, Room 12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number for this
notice. See the ``Public Participation'' heading below for instructions
on submitting comments and additional information.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT Headquarters Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket,
and will be considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcelo Perez, FMCSA, North American
Borders Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext. 228; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 25, 2007, the President signed into law the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (the Act), [Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112,
183, May 25, 2007]. Section 6901 of the Act requires that certain
actions be taken by the Department of Transportation (the Department)
as a condition of obligating or expending appropriated funds to grant
authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the
municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico
international border or the commercial zones of such municipalities
(border commercial zones).
    On July 8, 2011, FMCSA announced in the Federal Register [76 FR
40420] its intent to proceed with the initiation of a U.S.-Mexico
cross-border long-haul trucking pilot program to test and demonstrate
the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate safely in the
United States beyond the border commercial zones as detailed in the
Agency's April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice [76 FR 20807]. The
pilot program is a part of FMCSA's implementation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cross-border long-haul trucking provisions
in compliance with section 6901(b)(2)(B) of the Act. FMCSA reviewed,
assessed, and evaluated the required safety measures as noted in the
July 8, 2011, notice and considered all comments received on or before
May 13, 2011, in response to the April 13, 2011, notice. Additionally,
to the extent practicable, FMCSA considered comments received after May
13, 2011.
    In accordance with section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, FMCSA is
required to publish in the Federal Register, and provide sufficient
opportunity for public notice and comment comprehensive data and
information on the PASAs conducted of motor carriers domiciled in
Mexico that are granted authority to operate beyond the border
commercial zones. This notice serves to fulfill this requirement.
    FMCSA is publishing for public comment the data and information
relating to one PASA that was completed on October 7, 2011. FMCSA
announces that the Mexico-domiciled motor carrier in Table 1
successfully completed its PASA. Notice of this completion was also
published in the FMCSA Register.
    Tables 2, 3 and 4 ``Successful Pre-Authorization Safety Audit
(PASA) Information'' set out additional information on the carrier(s)
noted in Table 1. A narrative description of each column in the tables
is provided as follows:
    A. Row Number in the Appendix for the Specific Carrier: The row
number for each line in the tables.
    B. Name of Carrier: The legal name of the Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier that applied for authority to operate in the United States
(U.S.) beyond the border commercial zones and was considered for
participation in the long-haul pilot program.
    C. U.S. DOT Number: The identification number assigned to the
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier and required to be displayed on each
side of the motor carrier's power units. If granted provisional
operating authority, the Mexico-domiciled motor carrier will be
required to add the suffix ``X'' to the ending of its assigned U.S. DOT
Number for those vehicles approved to participate in the pilot program.
    D. FMCSA Register Number: The number assigned to the Mexico-
domiciled motor carrier's operating authority as found in the FMCSA
Register.
    E. PASA Initiated: The date the PASA was initiated.
    F. PASA Completed: The date the PASA was completed.
    G. PASA Results: The results upon completion of the PASA. The PASA
receives a quality assurance review before approval. The quality
assurance process involves a dual review by the FMCSA Division Office
supervisor of the auditor assigned to conduct the PASA and by the FMCSA
Service Center New Entrant Specialist designated for the specific FMCSA
Division Office. This dual review ensures the successfully completed
PASA was conducted in accordance with FMCSA policy, procedures and
guidance. Upon approval, the PASA results are uploaded into the FMCSA's
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). The PASA
information and results are then recorded in the Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier's safety performance record in MCMIS.
    H. FMCSA Register: The date FMCSA published notice of a
successfully completed PASA in the FMCSA Register. The FMCSA Register
notice advises interested parties that the application has been
preliminarily granted and that protests to the application must be
filed within 10 days of the publication date. Protests are filed with
FMCSA Headquarters in Washington, DC. The notice in the FMCSA Register
lists the following information:
    a. Current registration number (e.g., MX-123456);
    b. Date the notice was published in the FMCSA Register;
    c. The applicant's name and address; and
    d. Representative or contact information for the applicant.
    The FMCSA Register may be accessed through FMCSA's Licensing and
Insurance public Web site at http://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov/, and
selecting FMCSA Register in the drop down menu.
    I. U.S. Drivers: The total number of the motor carrier's drivers
approved for long-haul transportation in the United States beyond the
border commercial zones.
    J. U.S. Vehicles: The total number of the motor carrier's power
units approved for long-haul transportation in the United States beyond
the border commercial zones.
    K. Passed Verification 5 Elements (Yes/No): A Mexico-domiciled
motor carrier will not be granted provisional operating authority if
FMCSA cannot

verify all of the following five mandatory elements. FMCSA must:
    a. Verify a controlled substances and alcohol testing program
consistent with 49 CFR part 40.
    b. Verify a system of compliance with hours-of-service rules of 49
CFR part 395, including recordkeeping and retention;
    c. Verify the ability to obtain financial responsibility as
required by 49 CFR 387, including the ability to obtain insurance in
the United States;
    d. Verify records of periodic vehicle inspections; and
    e. Verify the qualifications of each driver the carrier intends to
use under such authority, as required by 49 CFR parts 383 and 391,
including confirming the validity of each driver's Licencia Federal de
Conductor and English language proficiency.
    L. If No, Which Element Failed: If FMCSA cannot verify one or more
of the five mandatory elements outlined in 49 CFR part 365, Appendix A,
Section III, this column will specify which mandatory element(s) cannot
be verified.
    Please note that for items L through P below, during the PASA,
after verifying the five mandatory elements discussed in item J above,
FMCSA will gather information by reviewing a motor carrier's compliance
with ``acute and critical'' regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs).
Acute regulations are those where noncompliance is so severe as to
require immediate corrective actions by a motor carrier regardless of
the overall basic safety management controls of the motor carrier.
Critical regulations are those where noncompliance relates to
management and/or operational controls. These regulations are
indicative of breakdowns in a carrier's management controls. A list of
acute and critical regulations is included in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix
B, Section VII.
    Parts of the FMCSRs and HMRs having similar characteristics are
combined together into six regulatory areas called ``factors.'' The
regulatory factors are intended to evaluate the adequacy of a carrier's
management controls.
    M. Passed Phase 1, Factor 1: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 1 (listed in part 365, Subpart E,
Appendix A, Section IV(f)). Factor 1 includes the General Requirements
outlined in parts 387 (Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for
Motor Carriers) and 390 (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations--
General).
    N. Passed Phase 1, Factor 2: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 2, which includes the Driver
Requirements outlined in parts 382 (Controlled Substances and Alcohol
Use and Testing), 383 (Commercial Driver's License Standards;
Requirements and Penalties) and 391 (Qualifications of Drivers and
Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors).
    O. Passed Phase 1, Factor 3: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 3, which includes the Operational
Requirements outlined in parts 392 (Driving of Commercial Motor
Vehicles) and 395 (Hours of Service of Drivers).
    P. Passed Phase 1, Factor 4: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 4, which includes the Vehicle
Requirements outlined in parts 393 (Parts and Accessories Necessary for
Safe Operation) and 396 (Inspection, Repair and Maintenance) and
vehicle inspection and out-of-service data for the last 12 months.
    Q. Passed Phase 1, Factor 5: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 5, which includes the hazardous
material requirements outlined in parts 171 (General Information,
Regulations, and Definitions), 177 (Carriage by Public Highway), 180
(Continuing Qualification and Maintenance of Packagings) and 397
(Transportation of Hazardous Materials; driving and parking rules).
    R. Passed Phase 1, Factor 6: A ``yes'' in this column indicates the
carrier has successfully met Factor 6, which includes Accident History.
This factor is the recordable accident rate during the past 12 months.
A recordable ``accident'' is defined in 49 CFR 390.5, and means an
accident involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public
road in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in: A fatality;
a bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately
received medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or one
or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the
accident requiring the motor vehicle to be transported away from the
scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
    S. Number U.S. Vehicles Inspected: The total number of vehicles
(power units) the motor carrier is approved to operate in the United
States beyond the border commercial zones and that received a vehicle
inspection during the PASA. During a PASA, FMCSA inspected all power
units to be used by the motor carrier in the pilot program and applied
a current Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection decal.
This number reflects the vehicles that were inspected, irrespective of
whether the vehicle received a CVSA inspection decal as a result of a
passed inspection.
    T. Number U.S. Vehicles Issued CVSA Decal: The total number of
inspected vehicles (power units) the motor carrier is approved to
operate in the United States beyond the border commercial zones that
received a CVSA inspection decal as a result of an inspection during
the PASA.
    U. Controlled Substances Collection: Refers to the applicability
and/or country of origin of the controlled substance and alcohol
collection facility that will be used by a motor carrier that has
successfully completed the PASA.
    a. ``US'' means the controlled substance and alcohol collection
facility is based in the United States.
    b. ``MX'' means the controlled substance and alcohol collection
facility is based in Mexico.
    c. ``Non-CDL'' means that during the PASA, FMCSA verified that the
motor carrier is not utilizing commercial motor vehicles subject to the
commercial driver's license requirements as defined in 49 CFR 383.5
(Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle). Any motor carrier that does
not operate commercial motor vehicles as defined in Sec.  383.5 is not
subject to DOT controlled substance and alcohol testing requirements.
    V. Name of Controlled Substances and Alcohol Collection Facility:
Shows the name and location of the controlled substances and alcohol
collection facility that will be used by a Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier who has successfully completed the PASA.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Row number in Tables 2, 3, and 4
of the Appendix to today's notice       Name of carrier       USDOT No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Moises Alvarez Perez DBA       677516
                                    Distribuidora Marina El
                                    Pescador.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 Table 2--Successful Pre-Authorization Safety Audit (PASA) Information (See Also Tables 3 and 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Column D--
                                  Column B--name of  Column C--US      FMCSA       Column E--PASA     Column F--     Column G--PASA      Column H--FMCSA      Column I--US        Column J--US
      Column A--row number             carrier        DOT number     register         initiated          PASA            results            register             drivers            vehicles
                                                                      number                           completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Moises Alvarez            677516     MX-313931  10/6/2011.........     10/7/2011  Pass..............  11/21/2011........  1.................  1
                                  Perez DBA
                                  Distribuidora
                                  Marina El
                                  Pescador.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 Table 3--Successful Pre-Authorization Safety Audit (PASA) Information (See Also Tables 2 and 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Column D--                       Column L--if
                                  Column B--name of  Column C--US      FMCSA      Column K--passed     no, which    Column M--passed    Column N--passed    Column O--passed    Column P--passed
      Column A--row number             carrier        DOT number     register      verification 5       element     phase 1 factor 1    phase 1 factor 2    phase 1 factor 3    phase 1 factor 4
                                                                      number     elements  (yes/no)     failed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Moises Alvarez            677516     MX-313931  Yes...............  ............  Pass..............  Pass..............  Pass..............  Pass
                                  Perez DBA
                                  Distribuidora
                                  Marina El
                                  Pescador.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 4--Successful Pre-Authorization Safety Audit (PASA) Information as of September 9, 2011 (See Also Tables 2 and 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Column V--Name of
                                                                      Column D--                                              Column S--    Column T--        Column U--          controlled
                                   Column B--name of   Column C--US      FMCSA       Column Q--passed     Column R--passed     Number US     Number US        Controlled        substances and
      Column A--row number              carrier         DOT number     register      phase I factor 5     phase I factor 6     vehicles      vehicles         substance             alcohol
                                                                        number                                                 inspected    issued CVSA       collection          collection
                                                                                decal                               facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  Moises Alvarez             677516     MX-313931  N/A................  Pass...............             1             1  U.S................  RMC Testing
                                   Perez DBA                                                                                Solutions
                                   Distribuidora
                                   Marina El Pescador.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to provide as much information as possible for review,
the application and PASA results for this carrier are posted at the
Agency's Web site for the pilot program at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intl-programs/trucking/Trucking-Program.aspx. Both documents were
redacted so that personal information regarding the drivers is not
released. Sensitive business information, such as the carrier's tax
identification number, was also redacted. In response to previous
comments received regarding the PASA notice process, FMCSA also posted
copies of the vehicle inspections conducted during the PASA in the PASA
document.
    A list of the carrier's vehicles approved by FMCSA for use in the
pilot program is also available at the above referenced Web site.
    To date, no carriers have failed the PASA. The Act only requires
publication of data for carriers receiving operating authority, as
failure to successfully complete the PASA precludes the carrier from
being granted authority to participate in the long-haul pilot program.
FMCSA will publish this information to show motor carriers that failed
to meet U.S. safety standards.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Act, FMCSA requests public comment from all
interested persons on the PASA information presented in this notice.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public
docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to
late comments, the FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public
docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment
closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public
docket for new material.
    FMCSA notes that under its regulations, preliminary grants of
authority, pending the carrier's showing of compliance with insurance
and process agent requirements and the resolution of any protests, are
publically noticed through publication in the FMCSA Register. Any
protests of such grants must be filed within 10 days of

publication of notice in the FMCSA Register.

    Issued on: November 9, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-30735 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. Having smoked cigarettes for 42 years and the only thing that finally allowed me to permanently quit smoking was E-Cigarettes. So I want the time to fully digest the proposed rules so that I may reply in the best and most informed manner I can.  I also wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Thank You.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30941-30946]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13030]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884; FRL-9928-42-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Baltimore, Maryland Moderate
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making the
determination that the Baltimore, Maryland Moderate Nonattainment Area
(Baltimore Area) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based upon
complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring
data that shows the Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. As a result of
this determination, the requirement for the Baltimore Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress plans (RFP), contingency
measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related
to attainment of the standard are suspended for as long as the area
continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three
years) to provide increased protection of public health and the
environment. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).\1\ The 2008 ozone NAAQS
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. On May 21, 2012 (77
FR 30088), effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three
most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data. The Baltimore
Area (specifically, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore
County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County) was
designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.321.
Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no
later than six years after the effective date of designations, or July
20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903. Air quality monitoring data from the 2012-
2014 monitoring period indicate that the Baltimore Area is now
attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14041),
EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), which proposed to
determine that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Public comments were received on the NPR. Summaries of the
comments as well as EPA's responses are in section III of this
rulemaking notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year
8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.1118,\2\ also known as EPA's
Clean Data Policy, a determination by EPA that an area is attaining the
relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and
comment) suspends the area's obligations to submit an attainment
demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures and other planning
requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This suspension
remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates
the area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer
apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA
remains obligated under section 110(k)(2) to act upon these elements at
any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. On April 22,
2015, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) sent
correspondence to EPA indicating its intent to submit an attainment SIP
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\3\ This determination of attainment is
not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA.
The designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the Area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for redesignation
to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. Additionally,
the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not
influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or
requirements for the Baltimore Area based on any new or revised ozone
NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates
this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised
ozone NAAQS. Finally, this determination does not relieve other CAA
requirements that are not related to attainment planning and
achievement of the NAAQS, such as an emissions inventory as required by
CAA section 172(c)(3) or a nonattainment area permitting program
pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA issued its proposal to determine that the Baltimore Area
was attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's
Clean Data Policy under the 1997 8-hour ozone implementation rule.
On April 6, 2015, EPA's plan implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS
became effective, thereby replacing 40 CFR 51.918 with 40 CFR
51.1118, a functionally identical provision for purposes of this
action. See 40 CFR 51.919.
    \3\ The April 22, 2015 letter from MDE is available in the
docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-
0884.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified ozone
ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period for 2012-2014 for
the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the years
2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm which is the 2008 ozone
NAAQS level, and all monitors meet the data completeness requirements
(see Table

1).\4\ Based on this 2012-2014 data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part
50, EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at
an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part
50, Appendix P. This 3-year average is referred to as the design
value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at
each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS.
The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of
days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to
90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data
completeness as determined in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part
58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System.

    Table 1--2012-2014 Baltimore Area 2008 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average        2012-2014
               Monitor ID                  percent data    Design value
                                           completeness        (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-003-0014.............................              97           0.074
24-005-1007.............................              95           0.072
24-005-3001.............................              99           0.072
24-013-0001.............................              99           0.069
24-025-1001.............................              98           0.075
24-025-9001.............................              96           0.073
24-510-0054.............................              90           0.064
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS
report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking
under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884 and available online at
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884. Other
specific requirements of the determination and the rationale for EPA's
proposed action were explained in the NPR and will not be restated
here.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received the following adverse comments on the proposed
determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. A summary of the adverse comments and our responses
follow.
    Comment 1: A commenter stated that EPA's proposed determination of
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for the Baltimore Area
thwarts the CAA's mandate of expeditious attainment of the NAAQS
because the monitored data are the result of unusual weather patterns
resulting in low ozone concentrations in Baltimore's air quality, which
the commenter asserts is likely to revert back to monitored
nonattainment in the near future. The commenter further states that
this is of particular concern in the Baltimore Area given that asthma
is an endemic problem and an environmental justice issue in Maryland.
According to the commenter, issuance of a determination of attainment
for the Baltimore Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would defer
additional needed air quality planning requirements, delay permanent
attainment, and jeopardize public health. The commenter also asserts
Maryland cannot rely on voluntary control measures which are not
permanent and enforceable. Therefore, the commenter stated EPA's
issuance of the determination of attainment would be arbitrary,
capricious and counterproductive to the mandate of the CAA.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not
finalize the determination of attainment because, in accordance with
EPA regulations and longstanding policy for such determinations, and in
accordance with the intent of the CAA, the area is factually attaining
the NAAQS. As the commenter acknowledges, unlike the CAA's
redesignation requirement that an area's attainment air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable measures in CAA section
7407(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA's Clean Data Policy does not require an
analogous demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1118. It is for this reason that
EPA's determination of attainment merely suspends the requirement to
submit attainment planning SIPs for only so long as the area continues
to attain the standard. If the area falls back into nonattainment,
those attainment planning SIPs become immediately due upon a
determination by EPA that the area is no longer attaining the NAAQS.
Moreover, Maryland may still submit SIPs in anticipation of this event,
and EPA will be required to act on those SIPs in accordance with CAA
section 7410(k)(2) and (3). The Clean Data Policy embodies EPA's
longstanding interpretation that certain planning requirements in the
CAA no longer have meaning for areas that are attaining the standard
because the purpose of these provisions is to help a nonattainment area
reach attainment, a goal which will already have been achieved.
    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the general preamble for the implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble). See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April
16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171,
172, and 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become
known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See
Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz
Memorandum). The Seitz Memorandum provided that requirements to submit
SIP revisions addressing RFP, an attainment demonstration, and other
related requirements such as contingency measures and other specific
ozone-related requirements in section 182 would be suspended for as
long as the nonattainment area continued to monitor attainment of the
NAAQS. EPA incorporated its ``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation in
both its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.918, its Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule) in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), the SIP requirements rule
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS published on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), and
the proposed PM implementation rule published on March 23, 2015 (80 FR
15340). See 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April

25, 2007).\5\ Over the past two decades, in regulations, guidance
memoranda, and numerous individual rulemakings, EPA has consistently
articulated its Clean Data Policy interpretation as applying to the
attainment-related SIP planning provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 4 of
Part D of Title I of the CAA, and the spectrum of ambient air quality
standards, including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, coarse particulate
matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
and lead (Pb) NAAQS. See e.g. 79 FR 77911 (December 29, 2014)
(determination of attainment of 2008 Pb NAAQS); 79 FR 25014 (May 2,
2014) (determination of attainment of 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS); 79
FR 21139 (April 15, 2014) (determination of attainment of 2008 ozone
NAAQS); 78 FR 20244 (April 4, 2013) (determination of attainment of
1997 ozone NAAQS); and 77 FR 36163 (June 18, 2012) (determination of
attainment of 1-hour ozone NAAQS). The D.C. Circuit explicitly upheld
EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation as embodied in the1997 8-Hour
Ozone Implementation Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.\6\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d
1245, 1258-61 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
that have considered and reviewed EPA's Clean Data Policy
interpretation have similarly upheld it and the rulemakings applying
EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir.
1996); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion); and Latino Issues Forum v. EPA,
Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009) (memorandum
opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ While the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in a January 4, 2013 decision
remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA, the
D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of that regulation regarding
our Clean Data Policy in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), nor cast any doubt on
EPA's existing interpretation of the statutory provisions for the
Clean Data Policy. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    \6\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).'' See 70
FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA finds the Baltimore Area's monitoring data supports a
determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as explained above and in the NPR, EPA disagrees with the commenter
that EPA should not issue at this time a determination of attainment
which suspends SIP planning requirements for the Baltimore Area
pursuant to our Clean Data Policy. EPA acts to protect the public
health in accordance with the CAA and its mandates and the Agency is
concerned with increased asthma incidences as well as with ensuring
environmental justice for communities. EPA's determination of
attainment for the Baltimore Area is in accordance with our regulations
and longstanding policy and is based on monitored ozone data
demonstrating attainment with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA
set at a level to protect the public health. Thus, EPA's action is in
accordance with the CAA, its implementing regulations, and policy.
    Second, to the extent that the commenter is suggesting that EPA may
not issue a determination of attainment where the factors that
contributed to attainment are not permanent, EPA notes that such a
requirement is a prerequisite to a redesignation of a nonattainment
area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), but not for a determination
of attainment. A redesignation changes the legal status of an area from
nonattainment of the NAAQS to attainment of the NAAQS, and is not
pertinent to determinations of attainment that simply suspend
attainment planning requirements in Part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus,
EPA disagrees with the commenter that our determination of attainment,
which is based on data from ozone monitors in the Baltimore Area
showing attainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix P, is arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to the
CAA.
    Finally, under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rules
(40 CFR 51.918 and 51.919), if EPA issues a determination that an area
is attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes
public notice and comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to
submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures and
other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA
(i) redesignates the area to attainment at which time those
requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the
area has violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these
requirements are suspended, EPA is required to act upon these elements
if submitted to EPA for review and approval. In fact, Maryland has
stated its intent to submit an attainment plan for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which will address SIP attainment planning requirements in
sections 172 and 182 of the CAA, including control measures, RACM, RFP
and contingency measures which will assist the Baltimore Area with
maintenance of the NAAQS. See April 22, 2015 letter from MDE to EPA
regarding plans for 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment SIP which is included
in the docket for this rulemaking action. Thus, EPA has considered the
commenter's concern that this rulemaking will delay attainment planning
which could assist with maintenance with the NAAQS, and has determined
that MDE is addressing these concerns. Furthermore, EPA's NPR which
proposed to determine the Baltimore Area had attained the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS has not delayed or interfered with MDE's plans for
additional control measures to address ozone formation and attainment
and maintenance of ozone NAAQS. For example, MDE recently proposed
action on new nitrogen oxide (NOX) regulations for electric
generating units (EGUs), which may assist the Area with maintenance of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\ See COMAR 26.11.38 (proposed April 17,
2015).\8\ In addition, EPA expects further NOX reductions
will occur in Maryland with the projected closure of coal-fired power
generating units at NRG Energy's Dickerson and Chalk Point power plants
which are projected to deactivate by 2018.\9\ In addition, many other
coal-fired EGUs in Maryland and in states neighboring Maryland have
already deactivated or will soon deactivate in 2015 and 2016, including
R. Paul Smith, Potomac River, Chesapeake, Clinch River, Glen Lynn,
Armstrong, Elrama, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Willow Island, Albright,
Kammer, Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn, Rivesville, Walter C. Beckjord,
Muskingum River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy, which will likely
result in further NOX and ozone

reductions and thereby additionally address the commenter's concerns
with continued attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the
Baltimore Area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NOX is a precursor pollutant which reacts in the
atmosphere to form ozone.
    \8\ According to MDE's Web site, MDE has petitioned the
Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR) Committee
of the Maryland General Assembly requesting emergency status for
COMAR 26.11.38. If the AELR Committee grants its approval, the
emergency measure for NOX reductions at EGUs may go into
effect immediately. To become a permanent regulation, the regulation
must be promulgated following the State required administrative
procedures, which includes a 30-day public comment period. See
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/regulations/air/Pages/Emergency.aspx. For additional information including the proposed
regulations, see http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/regulations/air/Documents/COMAR_26.11.38.pdf and http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-air-pollution-rule-20150417-story.html.
    \9\ For a listing of EGUs which deactivated already or are
planning to deactivate in the states which are part of PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., a regional transmission organization which
coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity within states
including Maryland, see http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.
    \10\ See http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that EPA should not issue a
determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area because the Area
experienced atypical weather conditions in 2013 and 2014, leading to
lower monitored ozone levels in the Area, and asserts the Area is
likely to revert back to nonattainment in the near future. The
commenter states that unusually cool summers, increased precipitation,
and shifting ozone transport patterns which occurred in 2013 and 2014
contributed to unusually low ozone levels in the Baltimore Area, but
that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts
that such aberrant weather trends will not continue through summer
2015. The commenter asserts the Baltimore Area could revert to
nonattainment if summers are warmer with less precipitation than 2013
and 2014. The commenter cites to statements from Maryland and the Ozone
Transport Commission regarding the shifting weather and transport
patterns in 2013 and 2014.\11\ Furthermore, the commenter asserts that
2013 and 2014 atypical weather conditions led to lower energy demand
due to less use of air conditioners by consumers in summer, and thereby
led to lower coal plant operations, and presumably lower NOX
emissions helping to keep ozone levels low. The commenter notes the
coal-fired EGUs in Maryland have generally operated less in recent
years but tend to continue to operate on warmer summer days, which the
commenter says are the most ``sensitive'' from the ozone and public
health perspective. Thus, the commenter states EPA should decline to
issue the clean data determination for the Baltimore Area because of
the aberrant weather in 2013 and 2014 and because the Area is likely to
revert back to nonattainment in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ By reference to ``transport,'' the commenter refers to the
transport of air pollution and pollutants from upwind states to
downwind states in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter that transport of
NOX or ozone or that weather patterns including unusual
patterns of transport of pollution and cooler, wetter weather data than
historical averages should impact EPA's determination of attainment for
the Baltimore Area with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's
determinations of attainment with a NAAQS are based entirely on
monitoring data and on our evaluation of that data's compliance with 40
CFR part 50, Appendix P. Therefore, weather conditions, transport
patterns, energy demand, and EGU megawatt generation that the commenter
alleges may impact NOX and ozone pollution levels are
irrelevant in determining whether an area is attaining a NAAQS. Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. This 3-year
average is the design value. When the design value is less than or
equal to 0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is
attaining the NAAQS. EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the Baltimore
Area (included in Section II of this rulemaking action) supports the
determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In addition, the data completeness requirement for
evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS attainment is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or
equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data
completeness as defined in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. Monitor data
must also be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58 and recorded in the EPA's AQS. EPA's analysis in Section II of
this rulemaking action of the monitor data in the Baltimore Area shows
the Baltimore Area monitors meet the completeness criterion which also
supports our determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In sum, EPA reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period
for the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the
years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and all monitors
meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1 in Section II of
this rulemaking action). Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that
EPA should not issue the determination of attainment based on factors
such as atypical weather, transport, or reduced EGU generation. The
Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in accordance
with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P requirements and 40 CFR 51.918. Thus,
EPA's determination is in accordance with CAA requirements and is not
arbitrary or capricious.\12\ If the Baltimore Area's monitors show
design values exceeding the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future, EPA
will take appropriate action to remove the suspension of attainment
plan requirements as discussed in this rulemaking and in the NPR.
Furthermore, as noted in response to Comment 1, notwithstanding the
lawful suspension of these requirements in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1118, the state has indicated that it plans to continue working on
submissions to address the suspended attainment planning requirements,
which EPA will be required to act upon in accordance with CAA section
110(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA also discussed the irrelevance of atypical weather in
EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration for the Washington
DC-MD-VA, moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. 80 FR 19206 (April 10, 2015). In response to comments that
the weather in 2012 was cooler and wetter than average which led to
ozone levels lower than seen in prior years, EPA agreed that weather
plays an important role in ozone formation but stated that these
considerations do not require EPA to disapprove the attainment
demonstration where modeling and actual design values from ambient
air quality monitors demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS. Id. at
19213-214 (stating EPA's approval of attainment demonstration was in
accordance with CAA statutory requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter states that Baltimore's ozone monitors do
not accurately capture all maximum ozone exposures. According to the
commenter, several ozone monitors in the Baltimore Area (including
specifically the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors) have shut
off for several days during the ozone season in 2011, 2012 and 2013,
and on several occasions, shut off on very hot days as ozone
concentrations increased. The commenter asserts these monitors may have
missed exceedances that would have kept the monitor in nonattainment
for 2012-2014 with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The commenter states
the untimely shut-offs of ozone monitors call into question the
``cleanliness'' of the Area's data as monitors were ``down and failing
to record ambient ozone levels at critical points during ozone season
and summer heat waves.'' The commenter states EPA should decline to
grant the clean data determination at this time due to ``illusory air
quality improvements.'' Because the commenter questions the monitoring
data due to certain shut off episodes, the commenter additionally
claims EPA's determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area is
arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not
finalize

this determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS due to concerns raised by the commenter with respect
to certain ozone monitors in the Area, and disagrees that EPA's
determination is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. As discussed
previously, EPA issues determinations of attainment for the NAAQS based
solely on monitoring data input into EPA's AQS demonstrating attainment
with a NAAQS in accordance with requirements for attainment in 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix P, regardless of weather or transport conditions or
patterns. For EPA to issue a determination of attainment, one important
criterion is that the monitoring data must meet the completeness
requirements set forth in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50 (amongst other
requirements.) The data completeness requirement is met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than or equal to 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data
completeness. EPA has determined that the 2012-2014 ozone monitoring
data in the Baltimore Area meet these requirements because the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or
equal to 90% and because no single year has less than 75% data
completeness. Therefore, EPA has sufficient data in accordance with
Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50 for issuance of the determination of
attainment for the Baltimore Area with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
disagrees with the commenter that the monitors ``shutting off'' create
illusory air quality improvements as the monitors satisfy EPA's data
completeness requirements.
    In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization
that the monitors were ``shutting off,'' and EPA finds it unreasonable
to infer ozone exceedances may have occurred during any periods when
monitors may not have collected valid data. Ozone monitors are
sophisticated analytical instruments. While they mostly operate quite
reliably, there may be occasional incidences where monitors malfunction
or produce erroneous or compromised data despite best efforts at
maintenance and good operating practices. EPA believes it is
unreasonable to expect any ozone monitor to operate continuously
twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week over the seven month
ozone season without experiencing any operational issues. EPA believes
routine issues may be expected to occur affecting monitor operation and
performance including issues such as ultraviolet lamps and vacuum pumps
needing repair, particulate filters becoming clogged, and water vapor
condensing in the sample manifold and being drawn into the monitor.
    In addition, monitors must be operated in environmentally
controlled buildings or instrument shelters. If the air conditioning
fails and the monitors overheat, unstable readings may occur. If the
temperature gets too cold in a shelter on a hot and humid day,
condensation can occur and affect the ozone readings. Condensation may
also impact a monitor because ozone exceedance days are often observed
on warm and humid days. Further, monitoring stations frequently house
additional monitoring equipment creating a high electrical demand.
Thus, monitors are susceptible to electrical power disturbances from
power failures due to stress on the electrical grid or from power
failures due to thunderstorms which also frequently occur during hot
and humid ozone exceedance days.
    To combat such issues, a strict schedule of preventative
maintenance, operational checks, daily zero and span challenges,
periodic audits and a minimum of bi-weekly precision checks are in
place by state agencies operating monitors such as MDE to insure that
any monitor problems are addressed in a timely manner and that the
highest possible quality data is being produced. Since MDE produces
daily ozone forecasts, MDE's monitoring site operators are alerted
ahead of time when they can expect ozone exceedance days and extra
efforts are taken to insure that the monitors are operating properly as
practically possible.
    Because of these concerns with monitor operations, Appendix P of 40
CFR part 50 accounts for potential missing data with the completeness
criterion discussed previously. All of the Baltimore Area ozone
monitors meet these requirements for the period in question. EPA
reviewed data from the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors
noted by the commenter as having missing data from 2011-2013 including
on hotter days in the ozone season. In general, EPA believes that the
characterization of these monitors as being ``shut off'' is not
accurate. Instead, EPA found the data from these monitors was
invalidated for very brief periods or was briefly not collected due to
operational concerns such as malfunctioning air conditioning units,
power failures, and condensation concerns in sample lines. EPA's
analysis of the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors for the
time periods noted by the commenter is included in a Supplemental
Technical Support Document (Supplemental TSD) which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0884. EPA also believes it is unlikely that the monitors missed
high ozone exceedances as other monitors were operating in or near the
Baltimore Area during some of these limited occasions and were not
reporting exceedances. EPA finds it is unreasonable for the commenter
to infer ozone exceedances would have occurred during the very limited
periods of invalidated data or uncollected data due to power outages
because ozone concentrations are not solely dependent on temperature,
because ozone concentrations do not behave linearly from day to day at
each monitor, and because such inference ignores the meteorology and
the behavior of the other ozone monitors in Maryland, which did not
report exceedances on the same days and times when these three monitors
had limited periods of invalidated data.\13\ For a detailed discussion
of monitor performance and an explanation for the brief periods of
invalidated data at each of the noted monitors, see the Supplemental
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, one period of unavailable monitor data noted
by the commenter around June 29, 2012 at the Davidsonville monitor
occurred due to a power failure brought on by a historic storm
(known as a derecho) which caused extensive power outages and
property damage in Maryland. Despite the summer heat, none of the
other Baltimore area monitors registered exceedances during that
period of time as temperature is not always directly linked to ozone
exceedances. EPA finds it reasonable during this derecho that strong
winds likely swept ozone away from the Area based on monitoring data
from nearby monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, because EPA's determination of attainment for the
Baltimore Area is in accordance with established CAA requirements and
is supported by EPA analysis in the NPR and in Section II of this
rulemaking action regarding complete, quality-assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that shows the Baltimore Area has monitored
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring
period, EPA's determination is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
contrary to the CAA.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the
Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the

2012-2014 monitoring period. This determination suspends the
requirement for Maryland to submit an attainment demonstration for the
Baltimore Area, RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for so long as the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is
still obligated to act upon revisions addressing these requirements if
submitted to EPA for review and approval. Finalizing this determination
does not constitute a redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). Therefore,
the designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final
rulemaking action to determine that the Baltimore Area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment. Finally, this
determination does not relieve other CAA requirements that are not
related to attainment planning and achievement of the NAAQS such as an
emissions inventory as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or a
nonattainment area permitting program pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(5) and 173.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This action makes a determination of attainment based on air
quality, and will result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements, and will 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 se.);
     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 se.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et se., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action determining that the Baltimore Area has attained the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1082, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1082  Determinations of attainment.

* * * * *
    (i) EPA has determined, as of June 1, 2015, that based on 2012 to
2014 ambient air quality data, the Baltimore nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination, in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.1118, suspends the requirement for this area to submit
an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long
as this area continues to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2015-13030 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3424]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00995]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Schedule TO; OMB Control No. 3235-0515; SEC File No. 270-456

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Schedule TO (17 CFR 240.14d-100) must be filed by a reporting
company that makes a tender offer for its own securities. Also, persons
other than the reporting company making a tender offer for equity
securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78l) (which offer, if consummated, would cause that person to own over
5% of that class of the securities) must file Schedule TO. The purpose
of Schedule TO is to improve communications between public companies
and investors before companies file registration statements involving
tender offer statements. Schedule TO takes approximately 43.5 hours per
response and is filed by approximately 820 issuers annually. We
estimate that 50% of the 43.5 hours per response (21.75 hours) is
prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden of 17,835 hours
(21.75 hours per response x 820 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 14, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00995 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10065-10066]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1240-000]

Sage Solar I LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sage Solar I LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 1, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 12, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05061 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 73055-73056]
[DOCID:fr26de07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56976; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1 Thereto, to Reduce From Six Months to Three Months the Period for
Which a Company's Average Global Market Capitalization Must Exceed the
Levels Established by the Exchange's Pure Valuation/Revenue Test

December 17, 2007.
    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 October 29, 2007, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On December 14, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. \3\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Exchange notes that Amendment No. 1 superseded the
original filing in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to reduce from six months to three months the
period for which the average global market capitalization of
prospective listed companies must exceed the levels established by the
Exchange's ``pure valuation/revenue'' test contained in section 102.01C
of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual''). The text of
the proposed rule change is included below. Proposed new language is
italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
NYSE Listed Company Manual
* * * * *
    102.01 Minimum Numerical Standards--Domestic Companies--Equity
Listings
* * * * *
    102.01C A company must meet one of the following financial
standards.
* * * * *
    (II) Valuation/Revenue Test Companies listing under this standard
may satisfy either (a) the Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test or (b)
the Pure Valuation/Revenue Test.
* * * * *
    (b) Pure Valuation/Revenue Test--
    (1) At least $750,000,000 in global market capitalization, and
    (2) At least $75,000,000 in revenues during the most recent fiscal
year*.
    In the case of companies listing in connection with an IPO, the
company's underwriter (or, in the case of a spin-off, the parent
company's investment banker or other financial advisor) must provide a
written representation that demonstrates the company's ability to meet
the $750,000,000 global market capitalization requirement based upon
the completion of the offering (or distribution). For all other
companies, market capitalization valuation will be determined over a
[six]three-month average. In considering the suitability for listing of
a company pursuant to the provision in the immediately preceding
sentence, the Exchange will consider whether the company's business
prospects and operating results indicate that the company's market
capitalization value is likely to be sustained or increase over time.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to reduce from six months to three months the
period for which the average global market capitalization of
prospective listed companies must exceed the levels established by the
Exchange's financial listing criteria contained in section 102.01C of
the Manual.
    Section 102.01C requires companies listing under the Exchange's
``pure valuation/revenue'' test to have a global market capitalization
of $750 million. In the case of companies listing other than in
connection with an initial public offering or a spin-off or upon
emergence from bankruptcy, section 102.01C provides that the company
must have met the required level of market capitalization on the basis
of a six-month average. The Exchange believes that a reduction of this
requirement from six months to three months will not diminish the
quality of companies listing under the relevant tests. Rather, the
Exchange believes that the primary effect of the proposed amendment
would be to permit the earlier listing of companies that would
ultimately qualify on the basis of a six-month average.\4\ In accepting
companies that

have met the required market capitalization requirement for less than
six months, the Exchange will consider whether the company's business
prospects and operating results indicate that the company's market
capitalization value is likely to be sustained or increase over time or
whether more transient conditions have led to a valuation that is
unlikely to be sustained.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that under The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') Global Market Standard 3, a company can list with $75
million in market value of listed securities (sustained over 90
consecutive trading days) and $20 million in market value of
publicly held shares. See Nasdaq Rule 4420(c). The Exchange believes
that, notwith- standing the proposed shift to a three-month from a
six-month test period, the NYSE's ``pure valuation/revenue''
standard's requirement of a global market capitalization of $750
million is far more stringent than Nasdaq Global Market Standard 3.
    \5\ See proposed rule text, supra Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)\6\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5),\7\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-98 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-98. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-NYSE-2007-98 and should be
submitted on or before January 16, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-24889 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P