[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36950-36951]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15671]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64696; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-083]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Anti-Internalization Functionality for Registered Market Makers
on the NASDAQ Options Market

 June 17, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 14, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to adopt anti-
internalization functionality for registered market makers on the
NASDAQ Options Market. NASDAQ proposes to implement the rule change
thirty days after the date of filing or as soon thereafter as
practicable. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to provide anti-internalization (``AIQ'')
functionality to registered market makers on the NASDAQ Options Market.
Under the proposal, quotes and orders entered by market makers using
the same market participant identifier (``MPID'') will automatically be
prevented from interacting with each other in the System. Rather than
executing quotes or orders from the same MPID, the System will instead
cancel the oldest of the quotes and orders back to the entering party.
    Anti-internalization functionality was requested by market makers
or those considering making markets on NOM. Anti-internalization
processing is available only to market makers and only on an individual
MPID basis. Registered market makers that conduct order entry business
via alternative MPIDs will not be afforded the protection of AIQ
functionality with respect to such alternative MPIDs. NASDAQ considered
making AIQ functionality available to other participants, but rejected
that approach due to lack of interest and to maintain simplicity of
system processing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If demand should arise from other participants, NASDAQ will
reconsider providing this functionality to all participants at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anti-internalization functionality is widely available and has been
for many years.\4\ It is designed to assist market participants in
complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/or limit managing
broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as principal with orders
generated for those accounts. It can also assist market makers in
reducing trading costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting
from the interaction of executable buy and sell trading interest from
the same firm when performing the same market making function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4757(a)(4), NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(qq)(2), and BATS Rule 11.9(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ notes that use of the functionality does not relieve or
otherwise modify the duty of best execution owed to orders received
from public customers. Options market makers generally do not display
customer orders in market making quotations, opting instead to enter
customer orders using separate identifiers. In the event that an
options market maker opts to include a customer order within a market
making quotation, the market maker must take appropriate steps to
ensure that public customer orders that do not execute due to anti-
internalization functionality ultimately receive the same execution
price (or better) they would have originally obtained if execution of
the order was not inhibited by the functionality.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is consistent with this provision in that it assists market
makers in performing their quotation obligations, and prevents market
makers from violating applicable provisions of ERISA. Market makers
remain able to utilize alternative MPIDs without the use of AIQ
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-083 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-083. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2011-083 and should be submitted on or before July 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15671 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42451]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-15111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket Nos. FDA-2011-C-0344 and FDA-2011-C-0463]

Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Reactive
Blue 246 and Reactive Blue 247 Copolymers; Confirmation of Effective
Date

Correction

    In rule document 2013-15111, appearing on pages 37962-37963 in the
issue of Tuesday, June 25, 2013, make the following correction:
    On page 37962, in the section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the
first paragraph is corrected to read as set forth below:
    In the Federal Register of April 1, 2013, we amended the color
additive regulations in Sec. Sec.  73.3100 and 73.3106 (21 CFR 73.3100
and 73.3106), respectively, to provide for the safe use of additional
copolymers of 1,4-bis[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione
bis(2-methyl-2-propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue 247) and additional
copolymers of 1,4-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]anthraquinone
(C.I. Reactive Blue 246), as color additives in contact lenses. We also
corrected the nomenclature for Reactive Blue 247 by inserting ``2-
methyl'' before ``2-propenoic.''

[FR Doc. C1-2013-15111 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59332-59333]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040]

SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for SGS North America, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 21, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), as a NRTL. SGS's
expansion covers the addition of one recognized testing and
certification site to their NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details the scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    SGS submitted an application, dated October 16, 2017 (OSHA-2006-
0040-0052), to expand the recognition to include the addition of one
recognized testing and certification site located at: SGS Consumer and
Retail France, 135, Rue Rene Descartes-CS 30584, 13857 Aix en Provence
Cedex 3, France. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the
application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed
an on-site review of SGS France's testing and certification facility on
July 23-24, 2018 and recommended expansion of SGS's recognition to
include this one site.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion
application in the Federal Register on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 11117).
The agency requested comments by March 12, 2020, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of SGS's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the SGS expansion application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040 contains all materials
in the record concerning SGS's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion application, conducted a
detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information.
Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to
the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding
with this final notice to grant SGS's scope of recognition. OSHA limits
the expansion of SGS's recognition to include the site

in France as listed above. OSHA's recognition of this site limits SGS
to performing product testing and certifications only to the test
standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs,
and for test standards in SGS's scope of recognition. This limitation
is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that
operate multiple sites.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
SGS also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in the operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. SGS must meet all the terms of the recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
recognition of SGS, subject to these limitations and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 15, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-20727 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	September 17, 2009

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Determination of Clean Data for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard

FROM:	Jacqueline Lewis, Environmental Engineer /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez /s/

		Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch

A.  BACKGROUND

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a twenty-four hour standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.  EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter.  The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.  EPA and State air quality agencies initiated monitoring for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999.  On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years 2001-2003.  These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.  The Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR Part 81).

On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38161) EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to determine that the Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This proposed determination is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show that these areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006 - 2008 data.

On August 31, 2009, EarthJustice submitted comments on both the July 31, 2009 rulemaking for Maryland and a similar rulemaking (74 FR 38154) for nonattainment areas in West Virginia that was published on the same date.  Earth Justice requested that the 2009 data referred to in the notice be placed in the docket and that the comment period be reopened to enable the public to comment on whether the data supports EPA’s determination that these areas have clean data.  This TSD contains the information requested by EarthJustice and clarifies the 2006-2008 data that EPA relied upon to support its determination that each of these areas have clean data.  This TSD only addresses the data that pertains to the July 31, 2009 rulemaking for the Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment areas.

B.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

A nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is determined to have clean data when the design values for the annual and the 24-hour standards meet the requirements stipulated in 40 CFR Part 50, section 50.7 as follows:

(1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3;

(2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3.

Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the PM2.5NAAQS has attained the standard, 40 CFR section 51.1004(c) provides that the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5NAAQS shall be suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply, or if EPA determines that the area has violated the PM2.5  NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans.

C.  EPA’S ANALYSIS OF MONITORED DATA

1.  2006 – 2008 data

EPA’s determination that the Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment areas have clean data is based upon quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2006 – 2008 period, as measured by Federal reference method (FRM), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or Approved Regional Method (ARM) monitors described in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N.  The monitors used to determine the design value for the Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment areas are listed below.

Table 1.  Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area - Annual Design Values

 City	Site ID	2006 Annual Mean	2007 Annual Mean	2008 Annual Mean	Annual Design Value

Glen Burnie	24-003-1003	13.78908	13.415705	12.62814	13.3

Cockeysville	24-005-1007	12.554614	13.299239	12.050785	12.6

Essex	24-005-3001	14.250143	14.030058	12.635154	13.6

Edgewood	24-025-1001	11.545546	12.192596	11.085861	11.6

Baltimore	24-510-0035	14.820790	14.147969	14.54*	14.5

Baltimore	24-510-0040	14.943863	14.190132	12.847468	NA

Baltimore	24-510-0006	13.167778	13.092772	12.154004	12.8

Baltimore	24-510-0007	12.862948	13.386258	12.362925	12.9

Baltimore	24-510-0008	14.497423	14.974722	12.66425	14.0

NA – Monitor has been declared not comparable to the Annual NAAQS

*   Monitor shut down in August 2008, therefore the monitor has been declared not comparable to the Annual NAAQS

Table 2.  Hagerstown-Martinsburg Nonattainment Area – Annual Design Values

City, State	Site ID	2006 Annual Mean	2007 Annual Mean	2008 Annual Mean Annual Design Value

Hagerstown, MD	24-043-0009	11.88895	12.86864	11.83295	12.2

Martinsburg, WV	54-003-0003	14.93367	15.61224	14.18796	14.9

Table 3.  Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area  – 24-Hour Design Values

City	Site ID	2006 98th Percentile Concentration	2007 98th Percentile Concentration 	2008 98th Percentile Concentration 	24- Hour Design Value

Glen Burnie	24-003-1003	31.7	34.8	34.4	34

Cockeysville	24-005-1007	32.3	31.5	30.7	32

Essex	24-005-3001	34.3	34.2	29.8	33

Baltimore	24-025-1001	28.8	29.2	28.1	29

Baltimore	24-510-0006	32.8	32.7	33.4	33

Baltimore	24-510-0007	32.7	34.3	30.7	33

Baltimore<PHONE_NUMBER>	37.3	33.9	*	*

Baltimore	24-510-0008	35.5	36.3	32.7	35

Baltimore	24-510-0040	36.1	35.2	30.6	34

*   Monitor shut down in August 2008, therefore the monitor has been declared not comparable to the 24 Hour NAAQS

Table 4. Hagerstown-Martinsburg Nonattainment Area  – 24 Hour Design Values

City, State	Site ID	2006 98th Percentile Concentration	2007 98th Percentile Concentration 	2008 98th Percentile Concentration 	24-hour Design Value

Hagerstown, MD	24-043-0009	29.8	29.0	29.7	30

Martinsburg, WV	54-003-0003	31.4	31.4	30.8	31

2.  2009 data

	At the time of EPA’s proposed determination, EPA did not have State certified air quality data for the entire 2009 calendar year.  The State certified air quality data for the entire 2009 calendar year will not be available until well into calendar year 2010, and therefore, cannot be used for purposes of design value calculations during calendar year 2009.  Therefore, EPA did not rely upon any 2009 data to support its proposed determination that the above areas have clean data.  However, as part of the proposed determination, EPA made reference to a portion of the 2009 air quality data that was currently available.  EPA referenced such partial 2009 data because it indicated a continuing trend that is consistent with EPA’s proposed determination:  the air quality monitors located in Baltimore and the Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg 1997 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are continuing to monitor clean data.  The portion of the 2009 data that was available at the time of EPA’s proposed determination is provided below for informational purposes and as requested by EarthJustice.

Table 5.  Baltimore Maryland Nonattainment Area – 2009 Data

Site ID	City	County	First Quarter 2009	Second Quarter 2009

24-003-1003	Glen Burnie	Anne Arundel	12.74	9.72

24-005-1007	Cockeysville	Baltimore	11.77	10.32

24-005-3001	Essex	Baltimore	13.29	9.38

24-025-1001	Edgewood	Harford	9.61	9.93

24-510-0006	Baltimore	Baltimore	11.75	9.82

24-510-0007	Baltimore	Baltimore	11.67	9.93

24-510-0008	Baltimore	Baltimore	13.24	9.35

24-510-0040	Baltimore	Baltimore	13.63	9.91

Table 6.  Hagerstown-Martinsburg Nonattainment Area – 2009 Data

Site ID	City 	County 	State	First Quarter

2009	Second Quarter 2009

240430009	Hagerstown	Washington Co	MD	10.79	9.62

540030003	Martinsburg	Berkely Co	WV	14.02	11.35

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

	Based on the quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show that the Baltimore and Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg PM2.5 nonattainment areas have monitored attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006 – 2008 data, EPA is making the determination that these areas have clean data.  The 2009 data was referred to in the July 31, 2009 NPR only to show the continuing trend for this area to attain the standard, but was not relied on in the clean data determination.  Although the 2009 data is provided in this TSD at the request of EarthJustice, is not relevant to the clean data determination, and will not be included in the record for purposes of the new public comment period.

 Design values are the metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to determine attainment, and are calculated as follows:

(1) The 3-year average of annual means for a single monitoring site or a group of monitoring sites (referred to as the “annual standard design value”). If spatial averaging has been approved by EPA for a group of sites which meet the criteria specified in section 2(b) of this appendix and section 4.7.5 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, then 3 years of spatially averaged annual means will be averaged to derive the annual standard design value for that group of sites (further referred to as the “spatially averaged annual standard design value ”). Otherwise, the annual standard design value will represent the 3-year average of annual means for a single site (further referred to as the “single site annual standard design value ”).

(2) The 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values recorded at each monitoring site (referred to as the “24-hour standard design value”).  (See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N)

 PAGE  1