[Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 75848-75849]
[DOCID:fr21de05-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collections; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extensions:
    Form SE; OMB Control No. 3235-0327; SEC File No. 270-289.
    Form ID; OMB Control No. 3235-0328; SEC File No. 270-291.

    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 collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form SE is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits
that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically. The
information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify
paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or
other for-profit organizations that are required to file
electronically. Approximately 782 registrants file Form SE and it takes
an estimated .10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 78
hours.
    Form ID (OMB Control No. 3235-0328; SEC File No. 270-291) is used
by companies to apply for identification numbers and passwords used in
conjunction with the EDGAR electronic filing system. The information
provided on Form ID is essential to the security of the EDGAR system.
Form ID must be filed every time a registrant or other person obtains
or changes an identification number. Form ID is filed by individuals,
companies or other for-profit organizations that are required to file
electronically. Approximately 196,800 registrants file Form ID and it
takes an estimated .15 hours per response for a total annual burden of
29,520 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether these proposed
collections of information are 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 of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: December 12, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7588 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8317-8318]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-08962]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Pinnacle West Capital
Corporation To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, From Listing
and Registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc.

February 10, 2006.
    On January 27, 2006, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, an Arizona
corporation (``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, no par value
(``Security''), from listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (``PCX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer approved
resolutions on December 14, 2005 to withdraw the Security from PCX. The
Issuer stated that the Board considered the following factors in making
the decision to withdraw the Security from PCX: (i) Listing the
Security on PCX is no longer in the Issuer best interests because the
Issuer is subject to dual regulation by PCX and the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''); (ii) the benefits associated with listing on
PCX do not outweigh the costs and additional regulatory obligations,
and no longer favor continued listing on PCX; and (iii) the Security is
listed on the NYSE and will continue to list on NYSE.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with
applicable rules of PCX by complying with all applicable laws in the
State of Arizona, the state in which the Issuer is incorporated, and by
providing PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of
securities from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer's
application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from
listing on PCX and shall not affect its continued listing on NYSE or
its obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before March 9, 2006, comment on
the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
the File Number 1-08962
     or;

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 1-08962. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2217 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27112-27114]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0340; Product Identifier 2019-NM-203-AD; Amendment
39-19903; AD 2020-08-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer
S.A.)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model ERJ 190-
300 and ERJ 190-400 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a failure
propagation test, which revealed that when complete loss of the
electrical digital current (DC) essential bus 2 was induced, the smoke
detection system of the forward and aft electrical bays erroneously
indicated the presence of smoke via the respective engine indication
and crew alerting system (EICAS) messages. This AD requires revising
the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) procedures associated with
messages of smoke in the electronic bays presented on the EICAS, as
specified in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) Brazilian AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 22, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products
Certification Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[deg] 209, Jardim
Esplanada, CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP,
Brazil; telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this IBR material on the ANAC website
at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0340.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0340; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
Brazilian Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2019-12-01, effective
December 9, 2019 (``Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01'') (also referred to as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for all Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 and ERJ 190-400 airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by a failure propagation test, which revealed
that when complete loss of the electrical DC essential bus 2 was
induced, the smoke detection system of the forward and aft electrical
bays erroneously indicated the presence of smoke via the respective
EICAS messages. When these messages are displayed the existing AFM
procedures require the flightcrew to turn off the essential electrical
buses DC ESS BUS 1 and DC ESS BUS 3, which would result in a loss of
all electrical DC essential buses, causing loss of electrical power for
critical systems of the airplane.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to provide the flightcrew with revised
AFM procedures for responding to erroneous indications of smoke in the
electrical bays presented on the EICAS. If the flightcrew followed the
existing AFM procedures, it could result in a loss of all electrical DC
essential buses, causing loss of electrical power for critical systems
of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 describes revisions to the existing AFM
procedures associated with messages of smoke in the electronic bays
presented on the EICAS.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation

in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with
the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing
this AD after evaluating all pertinent information and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Brazilian
EAD 2019-12-01 described previously, as incorporated by reference,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and the European Union
Safety Agency (EASA) to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as
the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for
corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other
manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this
process. As a result, ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 is incorporated by
reference in this final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance
with ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 in its entirety, through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this AD. Service information specified in ANAC
Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 that is required for compliance with ANAC
Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0340.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of these products,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data,
views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0340;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-203-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85......              $0              $85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-08-11 Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.
(Type Certificate previously held by Embraer S.A.): Amendment 39-
19903; Docket No. FAA-2020-0340; Product Identifier 2019-NM-203-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 22, 2020.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S. A. (Type Certificate previously held by
Embraer S.A.) Model ERJ 190-300 and ERJ 190-400 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
power.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a failure propagation test, which
revealed that when complete loss of the electrical digital current
(DC) essential bus 2 was induced the smoke detection system of the
forward and aft electrical bays erroneously indicated the presence
of smoke via the respective engine indication and crew alerting
system (EICAS) messages. The FAA is issuing this AD to provide the
flightcrew with revised airplane flight manual (AFM) procedures for
responding to erroneous indications of smoke in the electrical bays
presented on the EICAS. If the flightcrew followed the existing AFM
procedures, it could result in a loss of all electrical DC essential
buses, causing loss of electrical power for critical systems of the
airplane.

 (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

 (g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o
Civil (ANAC) Brazilian Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2019-
12-01, effective December 9, 2019 (``Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01'').

 (h) Exceptions to Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01

    (1) Where Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Alternative method of compliance (AMOC)'' section of
Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01 does not apply to this AD.

 (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

 (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]

 (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) Brazilian Emergency
Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2019-12-01, effective December 9,
2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about ANAC Brazilian EAD 2019-12-01, contact
National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification
Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[deg] 209, Jardim Esplanada,
CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil;
telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.anac.gov.br/en/.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0340.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 23, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09633 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50814-50820]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23226]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0638; FRL-9969-93-Region 3]

Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date for the 2008
Ozone Standard; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a final
determination that the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-
DE marginal ozone nonattainment area (the Philadelphia Area) has
attained the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
by the July 20, 2016 attainment date. This final determination is based
on complete, certified, and quality assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for the Philadelphia Area for the 2013-2015 monitoring
period. The effect of this determination of attainment (DOA) is that
the Philadelphia Area will not be bumped up or reclassified as a
moderate nonattainment area. The determination of attainment is not
equivalent to a redesignation, and the States in the Philadelphia Area
must still meet the statutory requirements for redesignation in order
to be redesignated to attainment. This determination is also not a
clean data determination. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0638. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18268), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Philadelphia Area. The Philadelphia Area
consists of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia
Counties in Pennsylvania; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and Salem Counties in New Jersey;
Cecil County, Maryland; and New Castle County in Delaware. See 40 CFR
81.331, 81.339, 81.321, and 81.308. In the NPR, EPA proposed to
determine, in accordance with its statutory obligations under section
181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the relevant regulatory provisions (40 CFR

51.1103), that the Philadelphia Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable extended attainment date of July 20, 2016.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a final rulemaking action published on May 4, 2016, EPA
determined that the Philadelphia Area did not attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by its July 20, 2015 attainment date, based on ambient air
quality monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. EPA
determined that the Philadelphia Area qualified for a 1-year
extension of its attainment date, as provided in section 181(a)(5)
of the CAA and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR 51.1107, and
granted that extension. EPA established a new attainment date of
July 20, 2016, with attainment to be based on ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. See 81 FR
26697. (May 4, 2016). EPA's decision to extend the attainment date
has been challenged by the State of Delaware in Delaware v. EPA, No.
16-1230 (D.C. Cir.). That case is currently pending before the Court
and has not been decided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that EPA determine whether
an area has attained the NAAQS by its attainment date based on complete
and certified air quality data from the three full calendar years
preceding an area's attainment date. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is 0.075
parts per million (ppm). Consistent with the requirements contained in
40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, which set forth how to compute whether
monitoring sites and nonattainment areas are attaining the ozone NAAQS,
EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air quality monitoring data for the
monitoring period from 2013 through 2015 for the Philadelphia Area, as
recorded in the air quality system (AQS) database. State and local
agencies responsible for ozone air monitoring networks supplied and
quality assured the data. EPA determined that the monitoring sites with
valid data had design values equal to or less than 0.075 ppm based on
the 2013-2015 monitoring period. Therefore, based on 2013-2015
certified air quality data, EPA concludes that the Philadelphia Area
has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Other specific requirements of this determination of attainment by
the attainment date and the rationale for EPA's final action are
explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received
comments that are addressed in Section III of this rulemaking action.

III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received adverse comments from the Center for Biological
Diversity (Center), Sierra Club, and Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware). The comments are
excerpted and/or summarized and addressed in this section:
    Comment 1: EPA's regression approach is inconsistent with EPA's
Appendix P regulations, and EPA's reliance on the regression analysis
is unlawful and arbitrary. For one of the two monitors (Brandywine),
EPA relies on a regression analysis to predict the missing ozone
concentration measurements and, as a result, purportedly achieves the
requisite data completeness at that monitor. See U.S. EPA Region 3,
Delaware Brandywine/Martin Luther King Monitors Data Substitution
Analysis TSD 2013-2015 Ozone (Dec. 2016) (TSD), at p. 7. Appendix P is
quite clear, however, that ``[w]hen computing whether the minimum data
completeness requirements have been met, meteorological or ambient data
may be sufficient to demonstrate that meteorological conditions on
missing days were not conducive to concentrations above the level of
the standard.'' 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P section 2.3(b) (emphasis
added). EPA's regression analysis does not purport to make any
demonstrations regarding meteorological conditions, nor can it, as the
analysis is based purely on ozone monitor readings.
    Response 1: Commenters read 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, section
2.3(b) too narrowly, and ignore the last sentence of that section,
which states that ``Missing days assumed less then [sic] the level of
the standard are counted for the purpose of meeting the data
completeness requirement.'' EPA interprets this regulation to allow for
reasonable, rational assumptions using available data, whether
meteorological or ambient, to determine whether, on days where an ozone
monitor is missing data, it is unlikely that the actual ozone levels
would exceed the NAAQS. For this determination, EPA used three
different methods to determine whether data from days that the relevant
ozone monitors were missing data were rationally assumed to be less
than the level of the NAAQS, and therefore could be counted toward the
data completeness requirement. These methods are: (1) Analysis of
temperature; (2) regression analysis; and (3) data substitution. First,
EPA conducted an analysis that compared temperature (a meteorological
condition) at the Wilmington Delaware National Airport (ILG) to
measured ozone readings from 2010 through 2015 at the 18 ozone monitors
in the Philadelphia Area (See Table 4 of the technical support document
(TSD) at page 4). The highest daily 8-hour ozone readings from those 18
Philadelphia Area ozone monitors on all days (not just missing days)
was compared to the maximum daily temperatures at the Wilmington
Airport on the corresponding days. The results of this analysis,
presented in Figure 1 on page 6 of the TSD, shows that from 2010
through 2015, none of the 18 monitors recorded an 8-hour ozone level
above 0.075 ppm when the temperature at Wilmington Airport was at or
below 77 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). This analysis identified 18 days
in 2013, 30 days in 2014, and 27 days in 2015 with missing ozone
readings that could reasonably be assumed to be below the 0.075 ppm
threshold at the Martin Luther King (MLK) monitor (AQS ID 10-003-2004)
in Delaware. The temperature-based analysis alone added enough complete
days to the MLK monitor to meet the data completeness threshold. For
the Brandywine monitor (AQS ID 10-003-1010), the temperature-based
analysis identified 22 days during 2013, 9 days during 2014, and 8 days
during 2015 that could reasonably be assumed to be below a 0.075 ppm
ozone reading. However, the temperature analysis did not add enough
complete days to the Brandywine monitor to meet the Appendix P data
completeness level because there was an insufficient number of days
below 77[emsp14][deg]F at the Wilmington Airport in which the
Brandywine monitor was missing data. Therefore, EPA performed a
regression analysis in order to fill in the remaining data gap as well
as to validate the data results (for both monitors) obtained from the
analysis of temperature method.
    This regression analysis relied on ambient data--measured ozone
levels at a nearby certified ozone monitor--to predict ozone levels at
monitors with missing data. This type of analysis is only appropriate
where readings from a nearby certified ozone monitor closely correlate
with readings from the monitors with missing data. In this case, EPA
examined the two other air quality monitors located in the same county
as the Brandywine and MLK monitors, compared recorded ozone readings of
all four monitors on days and found that the Bellefonte2 monitor (AQS
ID 10-003-1013), which is located five miles from both Brandywine and
MLK, correlated most closely with those monitors. As explained in more
detail in the TSD, the Bellefonte2 monitor is strongly correlated with
both the Brandywine and MLK monitors (TSD at pp. 8-10). Using this
information, EPA determined a separate linear regression equation for
each of the Brandywine and MLK monitors. These two equations allowed
calculation of predicted ozone

readings for the Brandywine or MLK monitor on days when those monitors
were missing data by using actual ozone readings from the Bellefonte2
monitor (TSD at p.11) in the equation. The values calculated using the
linear regression equations for the MLK and Brandywine monitors are
shaded green in Table 6 of the TSD on pages 11-16. EPA took a
conservative approach and added, as complete days, only those days at
the Brandywine monitor where the predicted ozone value was less than
0.060 ppm. That is, EPA only employed the regression analysis method to
add days toward the data completeness requirement for the Brandywine
monitor where EPA's predicted ozone value was well below the level of
the NAAQS. The days added as ``complete'' days to the Brandywine
monitor via this method (linear regression equation showing less than
0.060 ppm ozone) are represented by the numeral ``2'' in Table 9 of the
TSD. The regression analysis added 8 complete days in 2013 and 16
complete days in 2014 to the Brandywine monitor (TSD, p.16) and also
validated and confirmed EPA's conclusions from its temperature method
analysis at this monitor. Since the analysis of temperature method
provided sufficient complete data for the MLK monitor, EPA performed a
similar regression analysis for the MLK monitor only for the purpose of
confirming and validating its conclusions drawn from the temperature
analysis. Both the temperature analysis and regression methods produced
the same results at the MLK monitor.
    EPA also used a third method--a data substitution analysis--as a
further check on the validity of the first two methods on the
Brandywine and MLK monitors. When any of the four monitors in New
Castle County, Delaware, was missing a valid day of data during the
2013-2015 ozone seasons, EPA looked at ambient data in the form of
actual recorded ozone values at the other New Castle County monitors
and substituted the highest recorded ozone value for the missing
value(s) at the other monitor(s). After adding these substituted data
values, a 2013-2015 ``test design value'' was calculated for all four
monitors. None of the four monitors' calculated test design values,
including Brandywine and MLK, exceeded the ozone standard of 75 ppb.
See Table 8, TSD at p. 17.
    Comment 2: The monitor data relied upon by EPA do not actually
demonstrate that exceedances of the NAAQS will not occur at
temperatures below 78 degrees. (Sierra Club, p. 2). For both of the
monitors (Brandywine and MLK), EPA relies heavily on a simplistic
comparison of monitored ozone values at monitors within the
Philadelphia Nonattainment Area and daily high temperature data from
the Wilmington Delaware National Airport to purportedly show that
meteorological conditions on days with high temperatures of
77[emsp14][deg]F or below are not conducive to ozone formation. TSD at
p. 3. But EPA's conclusion regarding the 77[emsp14][deg]F temperature
threshold is not supported by data upon which EPA relies and is
inconsistent with prior statements by the agency regarding the
parameters that influence ozone formation. With regard to the data,
EPA's sample of monitor-days is far too small a data set from which to
conclude that 77[emsp14][deg]F represents a magical limit below which
ozone concentrations are assured to be below the NAAQS. Indeed, Figure
1 of the TSD shows that at 78[emsp14][deg]F--just one degree above the
level at which EPA expresses confidence that no NAAQS violations will
occur--the maximum monitored ozone level in the Philadelphia
Nonattainment Area was close to 85 parts per billion, well above the 75
part per billion (ppb) NAAQS. Moreover, Figure 1 also shows that at
68[emsp14][deg]F--nine degrees below the temperature threshold
identified by EPA--maximum monitored ozone levels in the Philadelphia
Nonattainment Area were within one part per billion of the NAAQS.
    Response 2: It is not necessary to demonstrate that exceedances of
the NAAQS would never occur at temperatures below 78[emsp14][deg]F, nor
was the purpose of the analysis of temperature method to do so. The
methods used to determine data completeness are consistent with 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix P, Section 2.3(b) and are grounded in science. As an
example, EPA approved a similar demonstration from Delaware in 2010 for
the same Brandywine ozone monitoring site which relied on a similar
ozone and temperature comparison. This demonstration was referenced in
a clean data determination, which is a different type of rulemaking
action that also relies on air quality data, for the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area for the 1997
ozone NAAQS which was finalized in 2012 (77 FR 17341-17343). The
Delaware demonstration relied on ambient ozone and temperature data for
years 1997-2009, and reached a similar conclusion that ozone levels did
not exceed 0.075 ppm in the Philadelphia area on any days where the
daily maximum temperature was less than 77[emsp14][deg]F. While not
necessary for the data completeness determination for this Philadelphia
determination of attainment, this example is provided to demonstrate
that data completeness procedures conducted by Delaware in the past
have arrived at the same conclusion with regard to the use of
temperature data thresholds. Thus, EPA does not agree that the
77[emsp14][deg]F temperature threshold below which no ozone exceedances
have occurred in the Philadelphia Area is not supported by the
evidence. The fact that sometimes very high levels of ozone occur at 78
degrees or that sometimes high levels of ozone (yet still below 0.075
ppm) occur at much lower temperatures does not invalidate the
77[emsp14][deg]F threshold in this instance. Also, one measured ozone
value above 0.075 ppm does not equal a NAAQS exceedance because of the
definition of design value, which is a statistically-based measure of
the 4th high over a 3-year period. Regarding the sample size, EPA notes
that Delaware's analysis of temperature versus ozone concentrations for
the period of 1997 to 2009, when combined with EPA's analysis of
temperature versus ozone concentrations for the period of 2010 through
2015, provides nineteen years of data supporting the temperature
analysis conclusion. The following sources further discuss the
importance of the relationship between temperature and ozone formation
as established by both EPA and the scientific literature for decades:
    (1) Camalier, L., Cox, W., and Dolwick, P. (2007). The effects of
meteorology in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends.
Atmospheric Environment, Volume 41, Issue 33, pages 7127-7137; (2) Cox,
W. and Chu, S (1996). Assessment of interannual ozone variation in
urban areas from a climatological perspective. Atmospheric Environment,
Volume 30, Issue 14, pages 2615-2615; (3) U.S. EPA (2016). Trends in
Ozone Concentrations Adjusted for Weather Conditions. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/trends-ozone-adjusted-weather-conditions; and;
(4) Walcek, C. and Yuan, H. (1995). Calculated influence of
temperature-related factors on ozone formation rates in the Lower
Troposphere. Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 34, pages 1056-
1069.
    Comment 3: EPA's proposed attainment determination is not
protective of public health because monitoring data from the 2016 ozone
season no longer supports a finding that the Philadelphia Area is
meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response 3: To determine whether an area attained by the 2008 ozone
NAAQS attainment date of July 20, 2016, EPA is

required to rely on the three previous full years of data, which is
2013-2015. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P,
section 2.3(b). Any data occurring in calendar year 2016 cannot be used
in this determination because July 20, 2016 is in the middle of the
2016 ozone season and would produce only incomplete non-quality
assured, and uncertified data, as of the July 2016 attainment date. The
statutory provision governing the type of determination of attainment
EPA is finalizing today is very clear: ``the Administrator shall
determine, based on the area's design value (as of the attainment
date), whether the area attained the standard by that date.'' CAA
section 181(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). When making determinations of
attainment by the attainment deadline, EPA has consistently applied
this unambiguous language as restricting its analysis to the years of
data that constitute the basis for an area's design value as of the
specific attainment deadline. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix P further clarify that the design value be derived from
``three consecutive, complete calendar years of air quality monitoring
data.'' 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, section 2.3(b) (emphasis added).
The commenter's request that EPA use non-quality assured, uncertified,
incomplete calendar year 2016 data for this section 181(b)(2)
determination is not permitted under the statute and regulations.
    Comment 4: EPA illegally extended the attainment date deadline.
    Response 4: As noted in the proposed rule (82 FR 18269, fn 2), the
issue of whether EPA ``illegally'' extended the attainment date
deadline from July 20, 2015 to July 20, 2016 is the subject of a
petition for review filed by the State of Delaware on July 5, 2016 in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The
petition has been fully briefed, and oral argument was held on October
5, 2017. State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 16-
1230. The final rule extending the Philadelphia Area's attainment date
is therefore legally effective at this time and outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
    Comment 5: The CAA requires that a finding of attainment be made
only when all measures needed for attainment have been implemented, and
the current air quality meets the standard.
    Response 5: Commenters are incorrect regarding the CAA's
requirements for a section 181(b)(2) determination of attainment by the
attainment date. Nowhere in that provision does the CAA require that
such a finding can only be made ``when all measures needed for
attainment have been implemented'' and ``current air quality meets the
standard.'' Demonstrations of attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date require using the three calendar years of certified air
quality data preceding the attainment date, which is 2013-2015.
    Comment 6: Section 181(b)(2) does not restrict EPA to considering
only fully certified, quality assured and complete data from 2013-2015,
and the resulting 3-year design values calculated from those data. EPA
should consider the preliminary 2016 data, and has considered data
other than the three years of data prior to the attainment date in past
rulemakings, including:
    (1) The January 25, 2012 proposed determination of attainment and
clean data determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the New York-New
Jersey-Connecticut Nonattainment Area (NY-NJ-CT NAA) at 77 FR 3720; and
    (2) The July 18, 2012 final determination of attainment and clean
data determination for the NY-NJ-CT NAA at 77 FR 36163; and
    (3) The May 15, 2014 proposal to rescind the clean data
determination for the NY-NJ-CT NAA at 79 FR 27830.

The commenter asserts that these actions ``. . . prove[ ] that EPA has
considered uncertified data in proposals involving findings of
attainment/clean data determinations.''
    Response 6: All of the EPA actions cited by the Commenter support
EPA's use of only the three years of complete, quality-assured and
certified ozone monitoring data preceding the attainment date when
making this section 181(b)(2) determination of attainment by the
attainment date. EPA often makes 181(b)(2) determinations of attainment
by the attainment date in the same actions as clean data
determinations, but these are two distinct actions with different
statutory and regulatory requirements and consequences. Therefore, it
is reasonable for EPA to consider air quality monitoring data
differently for these two types of actions. EPA's regulations governing
clean data determinations for the various pollutants, including ozone,
interpret the CAA as suspending attainment planning requirements for
only as long as the area continues to attain the standard. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 51.1118. Thus, for a CDD, EPA requires an attaining design value
based on three full years of data, and also may consider any additional
preliminary data as well. Because the regulatory consequences of a
clean data determination depend on continued attaining air quality,
review of data until the final rulemaking as well as post-rulemaking
review of data is appropriate. By contrast, section 181(b)(2) has the
specific statutory consequence of deciding whether or not an area is
reclassified to a higher classification. Under the CAA, if an area
attains the NAAQS by its statutory attainment date, it cannot be
``bumped up'' or reclassified, even if it later violates the standard
after that date. The Act therefore instructs the EPA to make a
determination of an area's air quality attainment status as of a date
certain--the area's attainment deadline.
    The January 25, 2012 proposal cited by Commenter contains both a
determination of attainment by the attainment date and a clean data
determination. The 2012 proposal specifically states that ``EPA
proposes to determine, in accordance with section 181(b)(2), that the
NY-NJ-CT area attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard by the
applicable deadline for that standard, June 15, 2010. This proposed
determination is based on complete, quality-assured and certified data
for 2007-2009.'' 77 FR 3720, 3722. In the next paragraph, the proposal
states ``[i]n addition, EPA is separately and independently proposing
to determine that the NY-NJ-CT area is currently attaining the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard, based on complete, quality-assured and
certified data for 2008-2010 and preliminary data for 2011 that
indicate continued attainment.'' Id. This second paragraph describes
EPA's clean data determination (CDD), and therefore may consider all
data up to the point of the rulemaking, including preliminary data. In
this action, EPA is only making a section 181(b)(2) determination of
attainment by the attainment date for the Philadelphia Area. If EPA
were making a clean data determination for the Philadelphia Area, the
preliminary 2016 data could be considered as a supplement.
    Similarly, the June 18, 2012 \2\ final action for the NY-NJ-CT NAA
uses only complete, quality-assured and certified 2007-2009 data for
the determination of attainment by the June 15, 2010 attainment date,
while using complete, quality-assured and certified 2008-2010 data and
preliminary 2011 ozone data in making its clean data determination. See
77 FR 36163 (June 18, 2012). EPA's 2014 action proposing to rescind the
2012

clean data determination for the NY-NJ-CT NAA followed the same
practice of considering all recent data. See 79 FR 27830, 27832 (May
15, 2014). Thus, these previous actions cited by the comment do not
show that EPA uses or considers incomplete, uncertified and preliminary
data when making a section 181(b)(2) determinations of attainment by
the attainment date. Today's action is therefore consistent with the
other actions cited by the Commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The comment incorrectly cites July 18, 2012 as the Federal
Register date for this final determination. The correct date is June
18, 2012. See 77 FR 36163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: DNREC objects to EPA performing the data substitution
analysis for the two Delaware monitors without notifying Delaware and
giving Delaware an opportunity to review prior to publication.
    Response 7: EPA is required to make this determination of
attainment by the attainment date. This determination of attainment
cannot be made without complete air quality data for 2013-2015. Because
DNREC did not submit a data substitution analysis for the two Delaware
monitors with incomplete data, EPA was required to perform this
analysis.
    Comment 8: Early 2017 ozone season data show that the Philadelphia
Area has already experienced two episodes of nonattaining air quality
based on preliminary maximum ozone concentrations of 79 ppb in Delaware
and 86 ppb in Philadelphia.
    Response 8: EPA's determination of attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area is based on complete, quality assured,
and certified data for the 2013-2015 ozone seasons in accordance with
section 181(b)(2) of the Act and 40 CFR parts 50, 51 and 58.
    Comment 9: EPA's notice did not explain the implications of a
finding of attainment in its proposal, and Delaware believes that a
finalization of this finding will suspend CAA obligations for the area.
Therefore, if EPA makes a final determination of attainment based on
the 2013-2015 data, it must immediately make a finding of nonattainment
using 2014-2016 data.
    Response 9: EPA's notice did not explain in detail all the
implications of the section 181(b)(2) determination of attainment by
the attainment date. One consequence of the determination of attainment
by the extended attainment date is that the Philadelphia Area will not
be reclassified as a Moderate nonattainment area. See CAA section
181(b)(2)(A). However, although the Philadelphia Area will remain a
Marginal nonattainment area, since it is part of the ozone transport
region (OTR) it will need to continue to comply with the additional
requirements applicable to OTR states, including moderate area
requirements. Furthermore, EPA clearly stated in the Summary section of
the NPR that this action was not a redesignation of the Philadelphia
Area to attainment. EPA also reiterates that this action is also not a
clean data determination under 40 CFR 51.1118. A clean data
determination, if it were to occur at some future time, would have the
effect of suspending any attainment planning requirements. Regarding
the commenter's statement that EPA must immediately make a finding of
nonattainment (or a nonattainment designation) using the 2014-2016
ozone data, such a finding would be meaningless in this context. The
Philadelphia Area continues to be designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, and EPA is not, in this notice, issuing a clean data
determination such that the Agency would need to rescind such
determination based on more recent air quality data. Given that today's
action is not changing the Philadelphia Area's marginal nonattainment
designation, the suggestion that the Agency issue a nonattainment
designation is inappropriate. If certified air quality data indicates
issues with continuing attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA will
work with the relevant states in the Philadelphia Area and, to the
extent necessary, use appropriate CAA authorities to address those air
quality issues.
    Comment 10: EPA should not make a determination of attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS when data shows that the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70
ppm is not currently being met.
    Response 10: EPA's determination of attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the attainment date of July 20, 2016, is statutorily required
by section 181(b)(2), and requires that EPA use 2013-2015 ozone air
quality data in determining whether the 2008 NAAQS has been met, as of
the July 20, 2016 attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2015
ozone NAAQS is not germane to the specific question of whether the area
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date.
    Comment 11: Delaying the determination of nonattainment for the
Philadelphia Area will only delay adoption of needed SIP measures to
bring the area into attainment.
    Response 11: The determination of attainment by the attainment date
under 181(b)(2) does not suspend any state planning requirements that
are in place for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The effect of this action will
result in the Philadelphia Area remaining as a marginal nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and keeping all currently applicable
planning requirements in place, including OTR requirements.
    Comment 12: The commenter objects to efforts by Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to remove 2016 ozone
data based on ``exceptional events,'' especially if the exceptional
event is an increasing number of heat waves caused by global warning.
    Response 12: This comment is not germane to this determination of
attainment because EPA did not rely on any Pennsylvania ozone
monitoring data from 2016 in making its determination of attainment. As
required by the CAA and EPA regulations regarding determinations of
attainment by the attainment date, EPA used only complete, quality-
assured and certified ozone data from calendar years 2013-2015.
    Comment 13: The Center has further concerns about EPA's approach
for meeting data completeness requirements, especially given the
exceedances of the 2008 and 2015 NAAQS as noted above. The proposed
rule notes that EPA was able to ``add'' missing data from the
Brandywine and MLK monitors by conducting ``an analysis of the
meteorological data and a regression analysis'' and performed a
``substitution analysis as a check on the validity'' of that analysis.
See, 82 FR 18270 (April 18, 2017). It would be more appropriate to
require redundancy at monitoring stations prone to malfunctioning as
opposed to relying on data substitutions in areas suffering from ozone
levels at or above the NAAQS to assure that the most accurate data is
collected.
    Response 13: Please see the responses to comments 1 and 2 above
with regard to the adequacy of the methods used to meet the minimum
data completeness requirements at the MLK and Brandywine monitors. As
to requiring redundant monitors, the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) is currently meeting monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D. Appendix D does not require
redundant monitoring for ozone. EPA has made recommendations to
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) to try to reduce the data loss at the Brandywine air monitoring
site. EPA is required to perform technical systems audits on each
primary quality assurance organization at a frequency of once every
three years. DNREC was audited by EPA Region 3 on May 10-12, 2016. One
of the major findings of this audit was the incompleteness issues at
the Brandywine site. EPA recommended as corrective action to mitigate
potential

data loss due to down power lines that DNREC do preemptive tree
trimming each year. In addition, EPA recommended having a backup power
source at the site. DNREC's response to EPA's recommendation was that a
back-up power source is not feasible. DNREC will consider purchasing a
battery-operated FEM monitor as a back-up in case of sustained power
loss at the site, if resources are available.
    Comment 14: EPA also received comments that were not germane to
this final ruling but referred generally to the support of continuing
implementation of air quality standards and regulations. The comments
included support of keeping EPA regulations in place to protect human
health and the environment.
    Response 14: EPA appreciates the supportive comments, and notes
that ozone air quality monitoring will continue and existing air
quality standards and regulations will remain in place. This
determination of attainment by the attainment date does not reduce or
revoke any existing ozone monitoring or control requirements.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is making a final determination, in accordance with its
obligations under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1103,
that the Philadelphia Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. This determination of
attainment does not constitute a redesignation to attainment, and is
also not a clean data determination.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This rulemaking action finalizes a determination of attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on air quality and does not impose
additional requirements. For that reason, this determination of
attainment:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 seq., 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 January 2, 2018. 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 Philadelphia Area attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS by its July 20, 2016 attainment date 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 11, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    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 I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.425, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.425  Determinations of attainment.

* * * * *
    (d) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2013 to 2015, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2016. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE marginal ozone nonattainment area
will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its

applicable attainment date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).

Subpart V--Maryland

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

Sec.  52.1082  Determinations of attainment.

* * * * *
    (j) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2013 to 2015, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2016. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE marginal ozone nonattainment area
will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable
attainment date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
4. In Sec.  52.1576, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1576  Determinations of attainment.

* * * * *
    (d) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2013 to 2015, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2016. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE marginal ozone nonattainment area
will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable
attainment date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
5. In Sec.  52.2056, paragraph (o) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2056  Determinations of attainment.

* * * * *
    (o) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2013 to 2015, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2016. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE marginal ozone nonattainment area
will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable
attainment date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).

[FR Doc. 2017-23226 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 52 (Monday, March 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14357-14359]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Number: EG17-74-000.
    Applicants: Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: EG17-75-000.
    Applicants: Bruenning's Breeze Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Bruenning's Breeze Wind Farm, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: EG17-76-000.
    Applicants: Techren Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Techren Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1485-007; ER10-3253-007; ER14-1777-006. ER10-
3237-007; ER10-3240-007; ER10-3230-007. ER10-3231-006; ER15-2722-003;
ER10-3232-007. ER10-3233-006; ER10-3239-007; ER14-2871-010. ER16-182-
005; ER10-3243-010; ER17-47-002. ER10-3245-009; ER10-3249-009; ER10-
3250-009. ER10-3251-010; ER14-2382-010; ER15-621-009. ER11-2639-010;
ER15-622-009; ER15-463-009. ER16-72-005; ER15-110-009; ER17-48-002.
ER13-1586-011; ER10-1992-017; ER16-902-001.
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P., Wheelabrator Bridgeport,
L.P., Wheelabrator Falls Inc., Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company
Inc., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc., Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc.,
Wheelabrator Ridge Energy Inc., Wheelabrator Saugus Inc.,Wheelabrator
Shasta Energy Company Inc., Wheelabrator South Broward Inc.,
Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P., Cameron Ridge, LLC, Cameron Ridge II,
LLC, Chandler Wind Partners, LLC, DifWind Farms LTD VI, Foote Creek II,
LLC, Foote Creek III, LLC, Foote Creek IV, LLC, Oak Creek Wind Power,
LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC, Ridge Crest Wind
Partners, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC,
San Gorgonio Westwinds II--Windustries, LLC, Terra-Gen Energy Services,
LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave Windfarms, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC,
Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC, Voyager Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 3/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170309-5251.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1140-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3128 NorthWestern Energy
NITSA and NOA to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1141-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-03-09 SA 2996
MidAmerican-North English E&P (J475 J555) to be effective 3/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1142-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-03-10 SA 2700 Minnesota
Power-Manitoba-Minnesota Power GNTL Assignment to be effective 3/11/
2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1143-000.
    Applicants: CMS Energy Resource Management Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance with Letter Order to be
effective 10/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1144-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Cost Sharing Agreement Filing to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1145-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Interim Transmission Owners
Governance Agreement to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1146-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Project Development Agreement to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1147-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Construction Management Agreement
to be effective 3/11/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1148-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Transmission Capacity Exchange
Agreement to be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1149-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Operation and Maintenance
Agreement to be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1150-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: System Improvements Agreement to
be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1151-000.
    Applicants: ADG Group Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: ADG Group Inc. Application
for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1152-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Various Service
Agreements re: MAIT Integration into PJM to be effective 2/27/2007.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1153-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and DSA Ellwood Storage
Project, SA Nos. 941 & 942 to be effective 3/13/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1155-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Interconnection
Facilities Agreement with IL&P to be effective 5/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1156-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation under
SCE's WDAT to be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1157-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation under
SCE's TO Tariff to be effective 5/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

    Docket Number: ER17-1158-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 Member Renewal RS A
Tariff Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/17.

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

    Dated: March 10, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05435 Filed 3-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 42787]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0592]

Yuri Izurieta; Conviction Reversal; Final Order Withdrawing
Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an
order, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act),
withdrawing its January 25, 2012, order debarring Yuri Izurieta from
importing food or offering food for importation into the United States.
FDA is issuing this order because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit issued an order vacating the conviction and sentence
of Yuri Izurieta.

DATES: Effective Date: July 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville,
MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  In a notice published in the Federal
Register on January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3776), FDA debarred Yuri Izurieta
for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering
such articles for importation into the United States. FDA issued the
debarment order under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(1)(C)), which permits FDA to debar an individual from importing
an article of food or offering such an article for import into the
United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(3)(A)), that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any food. The debarment was based on FDA's finding
that Mr. Izurieta was convicted of six felony counts under Federal law
for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an
article of food. Mr. Izurieta was convicted on May 11, 2011, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and sentenced
on July 29, 2011, for conspiracy to smuggle goods into the United
States and smuggling goods into the United States. The basis for Mr.
Izurieta's conviction was his alleged role in distributing shipments of
dairy products that were adulterated and not authorized for entry into
the United States. On August 3, 2011, Mr. Izurieta appealed his
conviction and sentence.
    On February 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit issued an order vacating the conviction and sentence of Mr.
Izurieta. A copy of the court's order is available in Docket No. FDA-
2011-N-0592. By this order, the court vacated Mr. Izurieta's
conviction. The order was issued as a mandate on April 23, 2013.
Section 306(d)(3)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act (U.S.C. 335a(d)(3)(B)(i))
states that ``If the conviction which served as the basis for the
debarment of an individual under subsection . . . (b)(3) is reversed,
the Secretary shall withdraw the order of debarment.'':
    Accordingly, the Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(d)(3)(B)(i) of
the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to the Associate
Commissioner (Staff Manual Guide 1410.21), issues this order
withdrawing the order of debarment of Yuri Izurieta, thereby allowing
him to import food or offer such articles for importation into the
United States. This order is effective July 17, 2013.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Melinda K. Plaisier,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-17122 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35870-35871]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-523-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-523); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collections and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 USC 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
(Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed information
collection activities described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due August 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-523-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. eFiling instructions are available at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. First time users must follow
eRegister instructions at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eregistration.asp, to establish a user name and password before
eFiling. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the
sender's e-mail address upon receipt of eFiled comments. Commenters
making an eFiling should not make a paper filing. Commenters that are
not able to file electronically must send an original of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. (If docket number contains an alpha at
the end then the following sentence should be used instead of the
previous one: Due to a system issue, eFiling and eSubscription are not
available for this docket.) All comments and FERC issuances may be
viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's eLibrary at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching on Docket
No. IC11-523. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collection is under the
requirements of FERC-523, ``Applications for Authorization for Issuance
of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities'', OMB Control No. 1902-
0043.
    Under Federal Power Act (FPA) section 204, 16 U.S.C. 824c, no
public utility or licensee shall issue any security, or assume any
obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in
respect of any security of another person, until the public utility
applies for and receives Commission approval by order authorizing the
issue or assumption of the liability. The Commission issues an order if
it finds that such issue or assumption (a) is for lawful object, within
the corporate purposes of the applicant and compatible with the public
interest, which is necessary or appropriate for or consistent with the
proper performance by the applicant as a public utility and which will
not impair its ability to perform that service, and (b) is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission uses the information contained in filings to
determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for
authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or
liability by the public utilities and their licensees who make these
applications.
    The Commission implements this statute through its regulations,
which are found at 18 CFR Part 34; and 18 CFR sections 131.43 and
131.50. Part 131 prescribes the required filing format. The information
is filed electronically.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of        Average burden
              Number of responses annually                 responses per        hours per         Total annual
                                                             respondent          response         burden hours
(1)                                                                   (2)                (3)    (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78.....................................................               1.7                 88             11,669
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total cost to respondents is $798,721 [11,669 hours/
2,080 hours \1\ per year, times $142,372 \2\ equals $798,721]. The cost
per respondent annually is $10,240. This is an increase from 60 to
currently 78 utilities filing annually. An increase from 1 to 1.7
filings per utility annually was also seen. The Commission considers
this a normal fluctuation due to market activities and filing times
chosen. Utilities files periodically, therefore the number of filings
are expected to continue to fluctuate from year-to-year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Number of hours an employee works each year.
    \2\ Average annual salary per employee (including overhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, using technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,

disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable filing instructions and
requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to this collection of
information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing
the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise
disclosing the information.
    The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

    Dated: June 14, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15193 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-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. I 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.  Having tried patches, Chantix, and cold turkey to no avail in attempts to quit smoking, e-cigarettes are working for me.  I've been tapering down my nicotine gradually and expect to be completely smoke-free three months from starting my e-cigarette use.  I began using my e-cigarette 7 weeks ago and have had two tobacco cigarettes in that time.  I started on 18mg/ml nicotine fluid and have since tapered to 12mg/ml.  In a couple weeks, I will taper to 6mg/ml and eventually arrive at 0 nicotine at which point I will very likely give up the e-cigarette altogether.  I am aware that using an e-cigarette is probably not as healthy as quitting cold turkey, but I can attest that it is the one thing that has worked for me in getting away from my 23-year smoking stupidity (1.5-2 packs a day these past few years).  I'm sure you probably hear this frequently.  At some point, all those reports should add up to something more than "anecdotal."  It is my belief that stories like mine give credibility to e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids.  I've stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes, and I'm weaning myself off a lifetime nicotine addiction.  I strongly feel that over-regulating this industry will limit product availability by making it so that only large tobacco companies are able to bring products to market.  And frankly, the products they offer today are far more expensive and of a significantly lower quality than products I'm able to purchase through other suppliers.  They also don't have the best public health record or reputation for transparency, and I loathe the thought of providing them with any further revenue.

I would like to see studies performed to develop facts to enable the population to make informed decisions about the use of e-cigarettes.  With no hard science, hard regulation seems to put the cart before the horse.  I fully support supplier inspection, full disclosure of chemicals, compounds, and components, and restriction of sale to minors.