EPA ICR No. 1759.05                                       OMB Control
No. 2070-0148

ATTACHMENT A

Section 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Attachment A

Section 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

SEC. 25. [7 U.S.C. 136w] AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.

(a) In General.—

(1) Regulations.—The Administrator is authorized in accordance with
the procedure described in paragraph (2), to prescribe regulations to
carry out the provisions of this Act. Such regulations shall take into
account the difference in concept and usage between various classes of
pesticides, including public health pesticides, and differences in
environmental risk and the appropriate data for evaluating such risk
between agricultural, nonagricultural, and public health pesticides.

(2) Procedure.—

(A) Proposed Regulations.—At least 60 days prior to signing any
proposed regulation for publication in the Federal Register, the
Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of
such regulation. If the Secretary comments in writing to the
Administrator regarding any such regulation within 30 days after
receiving it, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register
(with the proposed regulation) the comments of the Secretary and the
response of the Administrator with regard to the Secretary’s comments.
If the Secretary does not comment in writing to the Administrator
regarding the regulation within 30 days after receiving it, the
Administrator may sign such regulation for publication in the Federal
Register any time after such 30-day period notwithstanding the foregoing
60-day time requirement.

(B) Final Regulations.—At least 30 days prior to signing any
regulation in final form for publication in the Federal Register, the
Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of
such regulation. If the Secretary comments in writing to the
Administrator regarding any such final regulation within 15 days after
receiving it, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register
(with the final regulation) the comments of the Secretary, if requested
by the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the
Secretary’s comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing to
the Administrator regarding the regulation within 15 days after
receiving it, the Administrator may sign such regulation for publication
in the Federal Register at any time after such 15-day period
notwithstanding the foregoing 30-day time requirement. In taking any
final action under this subsection, the Administrator shall include
among those factors to be taken into account the effect of the
regulation on production and prices of agricultural commodities, retail
food prices, and otherwise on the agricultural economy, and the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register an analysis of such
effect.

(C) Time Requirements.—The time requirements imposed by subparagraphs
(A) and (B) may be waived or modified to the extent agreed upon by the
Administrator and the Secretary.

(D) Publication in the Federal Register.—The Administrator shall,
simultaneously with any notification to the Secretary of Agriculture
under this paragraph prior to the issuance of any proposed or final
regulation, publish such notification in the Federal Register.

(3) Congressional Committees.—At such time as the Administrator is
required under paragraph (2) of this subsection to provide the Secretary
of Agriculture with a copy of proposed regulations and a copy of the
final form of regulations, the Administrator shall also furnish a copy
of such regulations to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate.

(4) Congressional Review of Regulations.—Simultaneously with the
promulgation of any rule or regulation under this Act, the Administrator
shall transmit a copy thereof to the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives. The rule or regulation shall not
become effective until the passage of 60 calendar days after the rule or
regulation is so transmitted.

(b) Exemption of Pesticides.—The Administrator may exempt from the
requirements of this Act by regulation any pesticide which the
Administrator determines either (1) to be adequately regulated by
another Federal agency, or (2) to be of a character which is unnecessary
to be subject to this Act in order to carry out the purposes of this
Act.

(c) Other Authority.—The Administrator, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, is authorized—

(1) to declare a pest any form of plant or animal life (other than man
and other than bacteria, virus, and other microorganisms on or in living
man or other living animals) which is injurious to health or the
environment;

(2) to determine any pesticide which contains any substance or
substances in quantities highly toxic to man;

(3) to establish standards (which shall be consistent with those
established under the authority of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act
(Public Law 91–601)) with respect to the package, container, or
wrapping in which a pesticide or device is enclosed for use or
consumption, in order to protect children and adults from serious injury
or illness resulting from accidental ingestion or contact with
pesticides or devices regulated by this Act as well as to accomplish the
other purposes of this Act;

(4) to specify those classes of devices which shall be subject to any
provision of paragraph 2(q)(1) or section 7 of this Act upon the
Administrator’s determination that application of such provision is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act;

(5) to prescribe regulations requiring any pesticide to be colored or
discolored if the Administrator determines that such requirement is
feasible and is necessary for the protection of health and the
environment; and

(6) to determine and establish suitable names to be used in the
ingredient statement.

(d) Scientific Advisory Panel.—

(1) In General.—The Administrator shall submit to an advisory panel
for comment as to the impact on health and the environment of the action
proposed in notices of intent issued under section 6(b) and of the
proposed and final form of regulations issued under section 25(a) within
the same time periods as provided for the comments of the Secretary of
Agriculture under such sections. The time requirements for notices of
intent and proposed and final forms of regulation may not be modified or
waived unless in addition to meeting the requirements of section 6(b) or
25(a), as applicable, the advisory panel has failed to comment on the
proposed action within the prescribed time period or has agreed to the
modification or waiver. The Administrator shall also solicit from the
advisory panel comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating
guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of scientific
analyses made by personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency that
lead to decisions by the Administrator in carrying out the provisions of
this Act. The comments, evaluations, and recommendations of the advisory
panel submitted under this subsection and the response of the
Administrator shall be published in the Federal Register in the same
manner as provided for publication of the comments of the Secretary of
Agriculture under such sections. The chairman of the advisory panel,
after consultation with the Administrator, may create temporary
subpanels on specific projects to assist the full advisory panel in
expediting and preparing its evaluations, comments, and recommendations.
The subpanels may be composed of scientists other than members of the
advisory panel, as deemed necessary for the purpose of evaluating
scientific studies relied upon by the Administrator with respect to
proposed action. Such additional scientists shall be selected by the
advisory panel. The panel referred to in this subsection shall consist
of 7 members appointed by the Administrator from a list of 12 nominees,
6 nominated by the National Institutes of Health and 6 by the National
Science Foundation, utilizing a system of staggered terms of
appointment. Members of the panel shall be selected on the basis of
their professional qualifications to assess the effects of the impact of
pesticides on health and the environment. To the extent feasible to
insure multidisciplinary representation, the panel membership shall
include representation from the disciplines of toxicology, pathology,
environmental biology, and related sciences. If a vacancy occurs on the
panel due to expiration of a term, resignation, or any other reason,
each replacement shall be selected by the Administrator from a group of
4 nominees, 2 submitted by each of the nominating entities named in this
subsection. The Administrator may extend the term of a panel member
until the new member is appointed to fill the vacancy. If a vacancy
occurs due to resignation, or reason other than expiration of a term,
the Administrator shall appoint a member to serve during the unexpired
term utilizing the nomination process set forth in this subsection.
Should the list of nominees provided under this subsection be
unsatisfactory, the Administrator may request an additional set of
nominees from the nominating entities. The Administrator may require
such information from the nominees to the advisory panel as the
Administrator deems necessary, and the Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register the name, address, and professional affiliations of
each nominee. Each member of the panel shall receive per diem
compensation at a rate not in excess of that fixed for GS–18 of the
General Schedule as may be determined by the Administrator, except that
any such member who holds another office or position under the Federal
Government the compensation for which exceeds such rate may elect to
receive compensation at the rate provided for such other office or
position in lieu of the compensation provided by this subsection. In
order to assure the objectivity of the advisory panel, the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest with
respect to the members of the panel. The advisory panel established
under this section shall be permanent. In performing the functions
assigned by this Act, the panel shall consult and coordinate its
activities with the Science Advisory Board established under the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act
of 1978. Whenever the Administrator exercises authority under section
6(c) of this Act to immediately suspend the registration of any
pesticide to prevent an imminent hazard, the Administrator shall
promptly submit to the advisory panel for comment, as to the impact on
health and the environment, the action taken to suspend the registration
of such pesticide.

(2) Science Review Board.—There is established a Science Review Board
to consist of 60 scientists who shall be available to the Scientific
Advisory Panel to assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. Members of
the Board shall be selected in the same manner as members of temporary
subpanels created under paragraph (1). Members of the Board shall be
compensated in the same manner as members of the Panel.

(e) Peer Review.—The Administrator shall, by written procedures,
provide for peer review with respect to the design, protocols, and
conduct of major scientific studies conducted under this Act by the
Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal agency, any
State or political subdivision thereof, or any institution or individual
under grant, contract, or cooperative agreement from or with the
Environmental Protection Agency. In such procedures, the Administrator
shall also provide for peer review, using the advisory panel established
under subsection (d) of this section or appropriate experts appointed by
the Administrator from a current list of nominees maintained by such
panel, with respect to the results of any such scientific studies relied
upon by the Administrator with respect to actions the Administrator may
take relating to the change in classification, suspension, or
cancellation of a pesticide. When

ever the Administrator determines that circumstances do not permit the
peer review of the results of any such scientific study prior to the
Administrator’s exercising authority under section 6(c) of this Act to
immediately suspend the registration of any pesticide to prevent an
imminent hazard, the Administrator shall promptly thereafter provide for
the conduct of peer review as provided in this sentence. The evaluations
and relevant documentation constituting the peer review that relate to
the proposed scientific studies and the results of the completed
scientific studies shall be included in the submission for comment
forwarded by the Administrator to the advisory panel as provided in
subsection (d). As used in this subsection, the term ‘‘peer
review’’ shall mean an independent evaluation by scientific experts,
either within or outside the Environmental Protection Agency, in the
appropriate disciplines.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16012-16015]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0171]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zones regulations
for annual events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. This final
rule would update the locations for seven safety zones, add two new
safety zones, increase the safety zone radius of six existing fireworks
events, and modify the format of the regulation to list the annual
events and corresponding safety zones in table form. These proposed
amendments will protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the
hazards associated with annual marine events and improve the clarity
and readability of the regulation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0171 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number (USCG-2017-0171) in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' See the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for further instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade, John Mack, Chief of Waterways
Management, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 218-
725-3818, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 31, 2013 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal
Register (78 FR 32608) entitled ``Recurring Events in the Captain of
the Port Duluth Zone.'' The NPRM proposed to establish 8 permanent
safety zones for annually recurring events in the Captain of the Port
Duluth Zone under Sec.  165.943. The NPRM was open for comment for 30
days.
    On August 12, 2013 the Coast Guard published the Final Rule in the
Federal Register (78 FR 48802) after receiving no comments on the NPRM.
Through this proposed rule, the Coast Guard seeks to update Sec.
165.943.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has determined that an
amendment to the recurring events list as published in 33 CFR 165.943
will be necessary to: Update the location of seven existing safety
zones (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July
Fireworks Display, Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, LaPointe 4th of
July Fireworks Display, Point to LaPointe Swim, Lake Superior Dragon
Boat Festival, Superior Man Triathlon), add two new safety zones (City
of Bayfield 4th of July Fireworks Display & Two Harbors 4th of July
Fireworks Display), increase the safety zone radius of six fireworks
events (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Ashland 4th of July
Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, LaPointe
4th of July Fireworks Display, Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival), and
format the existing regulations into a table format. The purpose of
this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in
the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event and to
improve the overall clarity and readability of the rule.
    The amendments to this proposed rule are necessary to ensure the
safety

of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near
federally maintained waterways in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone.
Although this proposed rule will be in effect year-round, the specific
safety zones listed in Table 165.943 will only be enforced during a
specified period of time when the event is on-going.
    When a Notice of Enforcement for a particular safety zone is
published, entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Duluth, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the
Port Duluth or his or her designated representative can be contacted
via VHF Channel 16. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. As this rule is not a significant regulatory
action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order
13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing
Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day for each safety zone. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around all safety zones which
will impact small designated areas within Lake Superior for short
durations of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

environment. This rule involves: The update of seven safety zone
locations, the addition of two new safety zones, an increase of size
for six safety zone radiuses for fireworks related events, and the
reformatting of regulations into an easier to read table format. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.943 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.943  Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port
Duluth Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The following regulations apply to the safety
zones listed in Table 165.943 of this section:
    (1) The Coast Guard will provide advance notice of the enforcement
date and time of the safety zone being enforced in Table 165.943, by
issuing a Notice of Enforcement, as well as, a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    (2) During the enforcement period, the general regulations found in
Sec.  165.23 shall apply.
    (b) Contacting the Captain of the Port. While a safety zone listed
in this section is enforced, the Captain of the Port Duluth or his or
her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port
Duluth, or his or her on-scene representative.
    (c) Exemption. Public vessels, defined as any vessel owned or
operated by the United States or by State or local governments,
operating in an official capacity are exempted from the requirements of
this section.

                                                  Table 165.943
                                                [Datum NAD 1983]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Event                              Location                              Event date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks    All waters of the Keweenaw Waterway   Mid June.
 Display.                            in Hancock, MI within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 47[deg]07'22'' N.,
                                     088[deg]35'28'' W.
(2) Ashland 4th of July Fireworks   All waters of Chequamegon Bay in      On or around July 4th.
 Display.                            Ashland, WI within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 46[deg]35'50'' N.,
                                     090[deg]52'59'' W.
(3) City of Bayfield 4th of July    All waters of the Lake Superior       On or around July 4th.
 Fireworks Display.                  North Channel in Bayfield, WI
                                     within the arc of a circle with a
                                     radius of no more than 1,120 feet
                                     from the launch site at position
                                     46[deg]48'40'' N., 090[deg]48'32''
                                     W.
(4) Cornucopia 4th of July          All waters of Siskiwit Bay in         On or around July 4th.
 Fireworks Display.                  Cornucopia, WI within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 46[deg]51'35'' N.,
                                     091[deg]06'15'' W.
(5) Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks       All waters of the Duluth Harbor       On or around July 4th.
 Display.                            Basin, Northern Section in Duluth,
                                     MN within the arc of a circle with
                                     a radius of no more than 1,120 feet
                                     from the launch site at position
                                     46[deg]46'14'' N., 092[deg]06'16''
                                     W.
(6) LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks  All waters of Lake Superior in        On or around July 4th.
 Display.                            LaPointe, WI within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 46[deg]46'40'' N.,
                                     090[deg]47'22'' W.
(7) Two Harbors 4th of July         All waters of Agate Bay in Two        On or around July 4th.
 Fireworks Display.                  Harbors, MN within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 47[deg]00'54'' N.,
                                     091[deg]40'04'' W.

(8) Point to LaPointe Swim........  All waters of the Lake Superior       Early August.
                                     North Channel between Bayfield and
                                     LaPointe, WI within an imaginary
                                     line created by the following
                                     coordinates: 46[deg]48'50'' N.,
                                     090[deg]48'44'' W., moving
                                     southeast to 46[deg]46'44'' N.,
                                     090[deg]47'33'' W., then moving
                                     northeast to 46[deg]46'52'' N.,
                                     090[deg]47'17'' W., then moving
                                     northwest to 46[deg]49'03'' N.,
                                     090[deg]48'25'' W., and finally
                                     returning to the starting position.
(9) Lake Superior Dragon Boat       All waters of Superior Bay in         Late August.
 Festival Fireworks Display.         Superior, WI within the arc of a
                                     circle with a radius of no more
                                     than 1,120 feet from the launch
                                     site at position 46[deg]43'28'' N.,
                                     092[deg]03'47'' W.
(10) Superior Man Triathlon.......  All waters of the Duluth Harbor       Late August.
                                     Basin, Northern Section in Duluth,
                                     MN within an imaginary line created
                                     by the following coordinates:
                                     46[deg]46'36'' N., 092[deg]06'06''
                                     W., moving southeast to
                                     46[deg]46'32'' N., 092[deg]06'01''
                                     W., then moving northeast to
                                     46[deg]46'45'' N., 092[deg]05'45''
                                     W., then moving northwest to
                                     46[deg]46'49'' N., 092[deg]05'49''
                                     W., and finally returning to the
                                     starting position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 27, 2017.
E.E. Williams,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2017-06352 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 47804-47805]
[DOCID:fr09au10-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC10-574-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-574); Comment
Request; Extension

August 2, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
(Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed
information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due October 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-574-000. 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 and two (2) paper copies 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. In addition, 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. IC10-574. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at: (866)
208-3676 (toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 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 collected under the
requirements of FERC-574, ``Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw
Exemption'' (OMB No. 1902-0116), is used by the Commission to implement
the statutory provisions of Sections 1(c), 4 and 7 of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) (Pub. L. 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w). Natural gas pipeline
companies file applications with the Commission furnishing information
in order for a determination to be made as to whether the applicant
qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the Natural Gas Act
(Section 1(c)). If the exemption is granted, the natural gas pipeline
company is not required to file certificate applications, rate
schedules, or any other applications or forms prescribed by the
Commission.
    The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation or
sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) They
receive gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another
person at or within the boundaries of that state; (b) such gas is
ultimately consumed in such state; (c) the rates, service and
facilities of such company are subject to regulation by a State
Commission; and (d) that such State Commission is exercising that
jurisdiction. The data required to be filed by pipeline companies for
an exemption are specified by Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 152.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
FERC-574 reporting requirements, with no changes.
    Burden Statement: The estimated annual public reporting burden for
FERC-574 is reduced from the estimate made three years ago due to the
results of an analysis of recent filings showing that 60 hours per
response is a more accurate estimate for the average burden hours per
response than the 245 hours used in the 2007 estimate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average number of    Average  burden
      FERC data collection             Number of         responses per        hours  per         Total annual
                                    respondents (1)     respondent (2)       response (3)        burden hours
                                  ..................  ..................  ..................        (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-574........................                  1                   1                  60                  60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $3,977 (60
hours/2,080 hours \1\ per year, times $137,874 \2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Estimated number of hours an employee works each year.
    \2\ Estimated average annual cost per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, and utilizing 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 instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost 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.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19523 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68237-68238]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26867]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0521; FRL-9918-25]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the EPA's receipt of an application
62719-EUP-AA from Dow AgroSciences LLC, requesting an experimental use
permit (EUP). The EPA has determined that the permit may be of regional
and national significance. Therefore, because of the potential
significance, the EPA is seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0521, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the EPA has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. The EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who,
as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors,
may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health
impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides)
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the EPA taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, the EPA can allow manufacturers
to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required
to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of
pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more
of land or one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the EPA has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Dow AgroSciences LLC, (62719-EUP-AA).
    Pesticide Chemicals: (1) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 and
Cry2Ab2 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their
production (vector PV-ZMIR245) in corn event MON 89034 (OECD Unique
Identifier: MON-89-34-3), (2) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein
and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-
ZMIR39) in corn event MON 88017 (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-88-17-3),
(3) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material
necessary for its production (vector PHP8999) in corn event TC1507
(OECD Unique Identifier: DAS-15-7-1), (4) Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for
their production (vector PHP17662) in corn event DAS-59122-7 (OECD
Unique Identifier: DAS-59122-7), and/or (5) Double-stranded ribonucleic
acid (dsRNA) transcript comprising a DvSnf7 inverted repeat sequence
derived from western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) and
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material
necessary for their production (vector PV-ZMIR10871) in corn event MON
87411 (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-87411-9).
    Summary of Request: Dow AgroSciences LLC, is proposing to test MON
87411, a new plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) technology, alone and
in combination with other PIPs in corn to generate data and information
that is intended to support future PIP registration applications (e.g.,
PIPs with multiple modes of action against corn rootworm and/or
lepidopteran corn pests). Dow AgroSciences LLC's proposed experimental
program would begin on January 1, 2015, and go until March 31, 2016;
would take place on 9,038 acres in Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin; and
would use 8,720.37 grams of active ingredient. Trial protocols will
concentrate on seed development for future testing, nursery
observations of PIPs in various genetic backgrounds, phenotypic and
agronomic observations, efficacy and yield benefits, and regulatory
studies.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, the EPA will decide whether
to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-26867 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0799

	Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area for
the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

FINAL AND PROPOSED RULE

CATEGORY I.	NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING

Reserved

CATEGORY II.	NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Proposed Rule, “Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento
Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California;
Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements”
October 15, 2012. (pre-publication version)

CATEGORY III.	INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Not Applicable

CATEGORY IV.	OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS

Reserved (if comments are submitted)

CATEGORY V. 	FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

57 FR 13498, State Implementation Plan; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, April
16, 1992.

58 FR 51735, Executive Order 12866, October 4, 1993.

59 FR 7629, Executive Order 12898, February 16, 1994.

60 FR 36723, Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard for Salt Lake
and Davis Counties, Utah, and Determination Regarding Applicability of
Certain Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration
Requirements, July 18, 1995.

61 FR 20458, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio, May 7,
1996.

61 FR 31832, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Michigan, June 21, 1996.

62 FR 19885, Executive Order 13045, April 23, 1997.

62 FR 38652, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter, July 18, 1997.

64 FR 43255, Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999.

65 FR 37879, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio and
Kentucky, June 19, 2000.

65 FR 67249, Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000.

66 FR 28355, Executive Order 13211, May 22, 2001.

66 FR 53094, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of Miscellaneous
Revisions, October 19, 2001.

68 FR 25418, Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard, St. Louis
Area; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, and
Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, State of
Missouri, May 12, 2003.

69 FR 21717 Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard;
Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act
Requirements; Approval and Promulgation of Ozone Attainment Plan; San
Francisco Bay Area, CA, April 22, 2004.

70 FR 71612, Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard — Phase 2, November 29, 2005.

71 FR 61144, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter, October 17, 2006.

71 FR 61236, Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, Final
Rule, October 17, 2006.

72 FR 20586, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, (April 25,
2007)

74 FR 58688, Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, November 13, 2009.

75 FR 56, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina:
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point; Determination of Attaining Data for
the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, January 4, 2010.

75 FR 230, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina:
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997
Fine Particulate Matter Standard, January 5, 2010.

75 FR 6570, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Louisiana; Baton Rouge 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard, February 10,
2010.

75 FR 27944, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
California; PM–10; Determination of Attainment for the Coso Junction
Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain
Clean Air Act Requirements, May 19, 2010.

75 FR 31288, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Rhode Island; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone
Standard, June 3, 2010.

75 FR 53219, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Connecticut; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone
Standard for the Greater Connecticut Area, August 31, 2010.

75 FR 54778, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Louisiana; Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Determination of Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, September 9,
2010.

75 FR 62470, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee:
Knoxville; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standards, October 12, 2010.

75 FR 64949, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Rhode Island; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone
Standard for the Providence, RI Area, October 21, 2010.

76 FR 11080, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Wisconsin; The Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan Areas;
Determination of Attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, March 1,
2011.

76 FR 12860, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Indiana; Kentucky; Louisville Nonattainment Area; Determination
of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particle Standard, March 9, 2011.

76 FR 18650, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Rome;
Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standard, April 5, 2011.

76 FR 31237, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, May 31, 2011.

76 FR 31239, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee: Chattanooga; Determination of Attaining Data for
the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Standard, May 31, 2011.

76 FR 31858, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Macon;
Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standard,  June 2, 2011.

76 FR 33647, Approval and Promulgation of Determination of Attainment
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard: States of Missouri and Illinois,
June 9, 2011.

76 FR 36873, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia:
Atlanta; Determination of Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standards, June 23, 2011.

76 FR 38023, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama:
Birmingham; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Standard, June 29, 2011.

76 FR 55542, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; West Virginia: Kentucky; Ohio; Huntington-Ashland Nonattainment
Area; Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standards, September 7, 2011.

76 FR 60373, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton Nonattainment
Area; Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standards (September 29, 2011, Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997
PM2.5.

76 FR 70656, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC and SC; Determination of Attainment of
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, November 15, 2011.

77 FR 18922, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania; Determinations of Clean Data for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particulate Standard for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York,
Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster Nonattainment Areas, March 29, 2012.

77 FR 31496, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Massachusetts and New Hampshire; Determination of Attainment of
the One-Hour and 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standards for Eastern
Massachusetts, May 29, 2012.

CATEGORY VI.	OTHER DOCUMENTS

Memorandum from John Calcagni, “Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” September 4, 1992.

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” May 10, 1995.

Memorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,” December 14, 2004.

Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005 (Memorandum Opinion))

Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX,
to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board
transmitting findings of EPA’s Summer 2007 Technical System Audit of
CARB's ambient air monitoring program, August 18, 2008.

Technical System Audit of the California Environmental Protection Agency
Air Resources Board, 2007, USEPA Region 9, August 2008.

Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March
2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).

Letter from Joseph Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer,
Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) approving
SMAQMD’s “2009 Annual Monitoring Network Plan.” September 29,
2009.

Letter from Joseph Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch,
Planning and Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board
approving CARB’s “2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small
Districts in California.” November 24, 2009.

Letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and
Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar
year 2009 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, May 19,
2010.

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning
and Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board approving
CARB’s “2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts
in California.” October 29, 2010.

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD
approving SMAQMD’s Annual Monitoring Network Plan submitted on July
2010. November 1, 2010.

Letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and
Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar
year 2010 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, April 28,
2011.

California Air Resources Board’s Annual Network Plan Report for Small
Districts in California, June 2011.

SMAQMD’s 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan.

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD
approving SMAQMD’s “2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan.” October
31, 2011.

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning
and Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board approving
CARB’s “2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts
in California.” November 1, 2011.

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
March 2, 2012.

Letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and
Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar
year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, May 1,
2012.

Letter from James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the California Air
Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, USEPA
Region IX, requesting EPA find the Sacramento 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour fine particulate National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, May 9, 2012.

Monitor Description Report for Sacramento nonattainment area, U.S. EPA
Air Quality System, September 14, 2012.

Data Completeness Report Year 2009 for Sacramento nonattainment area,
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, August 31, 2012.

Data Completeness Report Year 2010 for Sacramento nonattainment area,
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, August 31, 2012.

Data Completeness Report Year 2011 for Sacramento nonattainment area,
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, August 31, 2012.

Data Completeness Report Year 2012 for Sacramento nonattainment area,
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, August 31, 2012.

Air Quality System Design Value Report providing 8-hour ozone design
values and air monitoring data at monitoring stations in Sacramento
nonattainment area, U.S. EPA Air Quality System, August 31, 2012.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8