[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69360-69361]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27723]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-9902-80-Region 9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the El Toro Marine Corp
Air Station Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete portions of the El Toro Marine Corp Air
Station Superfund Site (Site) located in Irvine, California, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of California, through the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, have determined that all appropriate response
actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains to all Site media, including soil
and groundwater, of parcels I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T,
III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G,
II-I, II-P, III-D, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-Q, I-
R, II-B, II-K, and II-O. The remaining areas of the Site will remain on
the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this
action. Maps identifying the area to be deleted and the area of the
Site to remain on the NPL are available for review in the partial
deletion docket.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mary Aycock, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Mail Code SFD-8-1, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
     Hand delivery: Mary Aycock, U.S. EPA Remedial project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Mail Code
SFD81, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD-7C, 95 Hawthorne Street,
Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: Mon.
thru Fri.--8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Heritage Park Regional Library, Reference Section, 14361 Yale
Street, Irvine, CA 92714. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: Mon. thru
Thu.--10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sat.--10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun.--12 p.m. to 5
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Aycock, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Mail Code SFD81, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion for portions of the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station
Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial
deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no
adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take
further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we
receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate,
address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial
Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will
not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: October 22, 2013.
 Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX .
[FR Doc. 2013-27723 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 49603]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[USCG-2003-14294]

Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port Decommissioning and License
Termination

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Public Notice; Final Agency Approval of the Gulf Gateway
Deepwater Port Decommissioning and License Termination.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces its final
clearance and authorization of the decommissioning of the Gulf Gateway
Deepwater Port and termination of the Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port
License (License), effective as of June 28, 2013. Pursuant to Section
1503(h) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, a License may
remain in effect until such time as it is either suspended or revoked
by the Secretary of Transportation or surrendered by the licensee. For
purposes of this agency action, MARAD has granted as of June 28, 2013,
final clearance of the completed decommissioning of the Gulf Gateway
Deepwater Port facility, and approved termination of the official
License and all other conditions and obligations set forth by the
License.

DATES: The date of termination of the License and all actions related
to this action is effective as of June 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket
for this project. The docket may be viewed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2003-14294, or in person
at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the Gulf
Gateway Deepwater Port project, contact Ms. Tracey Ford, Acting Office
Director, Office of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activities at (202)
366-0321 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated February 21, 2011,
Excelerate Energy LP (Excelerate) notified MARAD and the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) of its intention to decommission the Gulf Gateway
Deepwater Port, located 116 miles off the coast of Louisiana.
Excelerate's decision to decommission the Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port
was due primarily to declining pipeline capacity issues, significant
operational challenges, and changes in the global natural gas market.
In accordance with Article 20 of the License, Excelerate is required to
decommission its deepwater port in compliance with the decommissioning
plans approved by the Maritime Administrator and in accordance with
applicable Federal regulations and guidelines in place at the time of
decommissioning. The License further requires that MARAD approval be
granted in concurrence with other relevant Federal agencies. This
requirement was satisfied on April 14, 2012, and Excelerate was granted
authorization by MARAD to proceed with its planned decommissioning
activities. Excelerate completed the final decommissioning process on
March 14, 2013. At the end of the decommissioning process, all
components of the Gulf Gateway facility were removed and the connecting
pipelines were decommissioned in-place, in accordance with applicable
Federal regulations.
    As of the date of this notice, MARAD concurred that all
decommissioning activities for the Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port have
been completed, and approved termination of the official License and
other related License obligations.
    This Federal Register Notice completes the final close-out and
termination procedures for the Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port and License.
No further action will be undertaken by MARAD.
    Additional information pertaining to the Gulf Gateway Deepwater
Port project may be found in the public docket at www.regulations.gov
under docket number USCG-2003-14294.

    Authority: 49 CFR 1.66

    By order of the Maritime Administrator

    Dated: August 8, 2013.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-19687 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20543-20545]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08155]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0743; FRL-9944-74-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; MS; Redesignation of
the DeSoto County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 11, 2015, the State of Mississippi, through the
Mississippi Department of Environment Quality (MDEQ), submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the portion of Mississippi that is within the Memphis, Tennessee-
Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ``Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Area'' or ``Area'') and a related State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is taking the
following separate final actions related to the December 11, 2015,
redesignation request and SIP revision: Determining that the Memphis,
TN-MS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS); approving the State's plan for maintaining
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area, including the
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the year 2027
for the Mississippi portion of the Area, into the SIP; and
redesignating the Mississippi portion of the Area to attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2027 MVEBs for the
Mississippi portion of the Area adequate for the purposes of
transportation conformity.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0743. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Final Actions

    On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment
or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated
on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was
designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21,
2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air quality
data. See 77 FR 30088. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area consists of a portion
of DeSoto County in Mississippi, all of Shelby County in Tennessee, and
all of Crittenden County in Arkansas. At the time of designation, the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation Rule),\1\ EPA
established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1
of section 181(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This established
an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date
for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area's
attainment date is July 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This rule, entitled Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan
Requirements and published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), addresses
a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably
available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control
measures (RACM), major new source review (NSR), emission
inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance
with emission control measures in the SIP. This rule also addresses
the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the anti-backsliding
requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS are revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 11, 2015, MDEQ requested that EPA redesignate
Mississippi's portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the
State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area, including the MVEBs for NOX and VOC
for the year 2027 for the Mississippi portion of the Area.\2\ In a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 11, 2016,
EPA proposed to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is attaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and incorporate into the
Mississippi SIP the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008
8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2027 MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for Mississippi's portion of Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Area; and to redesignate the Mississippi portion of the Area to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7269. In that
notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
Mississippi's portion of Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. No comments were
received on the February 11, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of
Mississippi's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further
explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 7269 (February 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality adopted
the SIP revision containing the maintenance plan on December 2,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of Mississippi's redesignation request changes the legal
designation of DeSoto County in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis,
TN-MS-AR Area, found at 40 CFR 81.325, from nonattainment to attainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Mississippi's associated
SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP for maintaining the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-
MS-AR Area through 2027. The maintenance plan establishes
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 for the DeSoto County portion of
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area and includes contingency measures to remedy
any future

violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluating
potential violations. The MVEBs for the Mississippi portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, along with the allocations from the safety
margin, are provided in the table below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed in the NPRM, the safety margin is the
difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all
sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in
the maintenance plan. Mississippi chose to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
2027. MDEQ has allocated 5.26 tpd of the NOX safety
margin to the 2027 NOX MVEB and 2.46 tpd of the VOC
safety margin to the 2027 VOC MVEB.

     MVEBs for the Mississippi Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2027
                                         -------------------------------
                                                NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Emissions.......................            2.74            2.54
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB.........            5.26            2.46
                                         -------------------------------
    Conformity MVEB.....................            8.00            5.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding Mississippi's
December 11, 2015, request to redesignate the Mississippi portion of
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment and associated SIP revision.
First, EPA is determining that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is attaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs
for 2027, into the Mississippi SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates
that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2027.
    Third, EPA is determining that Mississippi has met the criteria
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation of the State's portion
of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area from nonattainment to attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving Mississippi's
redesignation request. As mentioned above, approval of the
redesignation request changes the official designation of DeSoto County
in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR
part 81.
    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Mississippi portion of
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area adequate for the purpose of transportation
conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation
partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX
and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``2008 8-hour
ozone Maintenance Plan for the DeSoto County portion of Memphis, TN-AR-
MS Nonattainment Area'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                   EPA Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Applicable       State submittal
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          geographic or       date/effective            EPA Approval date                         Explanation
             provision                nonattainment area         date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan  DeSoto County portion       12/2/2015   4/8/2016 [Insert citation of
 for the DeSoto County portion of    of Memphis, TN-AR-MS                    publication].
 Memphis, TN-AR-MS Nonattainment     Nonattainment Area.
 Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.325, the table entitled ``Mississippi-2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended under ``Memphis, TN-MS-AR:''
By revising the entry for ``DeSoto County (part) Portion along MPO
Lines'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.325  Mississippi.

* * * * *

                                                           Mississippi-2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                                                 [Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis, TN-MS-AR: \2\                    ...........  .........................................  ...........  .........................................
DeSoto County (part) Portion along MPO       4/8/2016  Attainment...............................
 Lines.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-08155 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


8/ 01 5.77 10/ 29/ 01 0.18 10/ 29/ 01 0.05 10/ 30/ 01 1.21 10/ 30/ 01 1.15 10/ 31/ 01 1.44 10/ 31/ 01 0.85 10/ 31/ 01 0.73 11/ 01/ 01 0.51 11/ 01/ 01 0.29 11/ 02/ 01 0.05 11/ 02/ 01 0.46 11/ 03/ 01 0.82 11/ 04/ 01 0.59 11/ 04/ 01 0.41 11/ 05/ 01 0.56 11/ 05/ 01 0.27 11/ 05/ 01 1.69 11/ 06/ 01 0.43 11/ 06/ 01 1.02 11/ 06/ 01 0.29 11/ 07/ 01 0.21 11/ 07/ 01 0.49 11/ 08/ 01 0.28 11/ 08/ 01 0.51 11/ 08/ 01 0.27 11/ 09/ 01 0.29 11/ 09/ 01 0.35 11/ 09/ 01 0.44 11/ 10/ 01 0.53 11/ 10/ 01 1.26 11/ 11/ 01 0.61 11/ 12/ 01 0.08 11/ 12/ 01 0.07 11/ 13/ 01 0.74 11/ 13/ 01 0.98 11/ 14/ 01 0.79 11/ 14/ 01 0.48 11/ 15/ 01 0.26 11/ 16/ 01 0.08 11/ 16/ 01 0.70 11/ 17/ 01 0.09 11/ 17/ 01 0.54 11/ 19/ 01 0.81 11/ 19/ 01 0.43 11/ 20/ 01 0.40 11/ 20/ 01 0.54 11/ 21/ 01 0.37 11/ 21/ 01 0.65 11/ 24/ 01 0.64 11/ 26/ 01 0.53 11/ 27/ 01 0.73 11/ 27/ 01 0.32 11/ 28/ 01 0.44 11/ 28/ 01 0.54 11/ 29/ 01 0.28 11/ 29/ 01 0.24 11/ 30/ 01 13.29 11/ 30/ 01 6.73 12/ 01/ 01 4.83 12/ 02/ 01 5.47 12/ 03/ 01 6.11 12/ 03/ 01 0.81 12/ 04/ 01 1.89 12/ 05/ 01 3.30 12/ 05/ 01 1.52 12/ 06/ 01 1.22 12/ 06/ 01 1.67 12/ 06/ 01 1.15 12/ 06/ 01 0.42 12/ 07/ 01 0.65 12/ 11/ 01 0.59 12/ 12/ 01 0.72 12/ 13/ 01 0.66 12/ 13/ 01 0.59 12/ 14/ 01 0.82 12/ 15/ 01 2.74 12/ 15/ 01 0.64 12/ 17/ 01 0.62 12/ 18/ 01 0.77 12/ 18/ 01 0.50 12/ 19/ 01 0.64 12/ 19/ 01 0.29 12/ 20/ 01 0.30 12/ 20/ 01 0.40 12/ 21/ 01 1.33 12/ 21/ 01 0.40 12/ 21/ 01 0.39 12/ 22/ 01 0.38 12/ 26/ 01 0.26 12/ 27/ 01 0.26 12/ 28/ 01 1.65 12/ 28/ 01 0.10 12/ 29/ 01 0.52 12/ 29/ 01 0.25 01/ 03/ 02 0.67 01/ 03/ 02 0.97 01/ 04/ 02 0.05 01/ 04/ 02 0.34 01/ 05/ 02 0.20 01/ 05/ 02 0.35 01/ 07/ 02 1.12 01/ 08/ 02 0.66 01/ 08/ 02 0.99 01/ 08/ 02 0.74 01/ 09/ 02 0.70 01/ 09/ 02 0.70 01/ 10/ 02 0.18 01/ 10/ 02 0.56 01/ 11/ 02 0.85 01/ 14/ 02 0.28 12/ 30/ 98 0.53 01/ 03/ 99 0.56 01/ 03/ 99 0.42 01/ 04/ 99 0.71 01/ 05/ 99 0.57 01/ 06/ 99 0.26 01/ 06/ 99 0.26 01/ 07/ 99 0.26 01/ 08/ 99 0.26 01/ 11/ 99 0.26 01/ 14/ 99 0.57 01/ 14/ 99 0.67 01/ 15/ 99 3.43 01/ 15/ 99 3.05 01/ 16/ 99 2.84 01/ 17/ 99 1.44 01/ 17/ 99 0.98 01/ 19/ 99 1.16 01/ 20/ 99 1.92 01/ 20/ 99 1.56 01/ 21/ 99 0.43 01/ 21/ 99 0.26 01/ 22/ 99 1.15 01/ 22/ 99 0.28 01/ 23/ 99 1.15 01/ 24/ 99 0.98 01/ 24/ 99 1.28 01/ 25/ 99 3.17 01/ 25/ 99 0.57 01/ 25/ 99 2.75 01/ 25/ 99 0.87 01/ 26/ 99 1.19 01/ 26/ 99 0.56 01/ 27/ 99 1.86 01/ 27/ 99 1.17 01/ 28/ 99 0.84 01/ 28/ 99 0.67 01/ 29/ 99 0.69 01/ 29/ 99 0.26 01/ 30/ 99 0.28 01/ 30/ 99 0.38 01/ 30/ 99 0.71 01/ 31/ 99 0.42 02/ 01/ 99 0.26 02/ 01/ 99 0.56 02/ 01/ 99 0.72 02/ 02/ 99 0.68 02/ 02/ 99 0.86 02/ 03/ 99 5.90 02/ 03/ 99 1.06 02/ 04/ 99 1.09 02/ 04/ 99 1.01 02/ 04/ 99 0.53 02/ 04/ 99 1.35 02/ 05/ 99 1.76 02/ 05/ 99 5.58 02/ 05/ 99 0.86 02/ 06/ 99 1.00 02/ 06/ 99 0.70 02/ 07/ 99 0.58 02/ 07/ 99 1.16 02/ 08/ 99 0.28 02/ 08/ 99 0.28 02/ 08/ 99 0.43 02/ 09/ 99 1.63 02/ 09/ 99 2.86 02/ 09/ 99 1.37 02/ 19/ 99 1.47 02/ 19/ 99 0.83 02/ 20/ 99 1.59 02/ 20/ 99 1.01 02/ 21/ 99 0.42 02/ 21/ 99 0.70 02/ 22/ 99 1.16 02/ 22/ 99 0.80 02/ 22/ 99 0.42 02/ 23/ 99 1.16 02/ 23/ 99 0.27 02/ 24/ 99 1.46 02/ 24/ 99 0.56 02/ 25/ 99 0.98 02/ 25/ 99 1.00 02/ 26/ 99 0.86 02/ 26/ 99 1.17 02/ 26/ 99 0.42 02/ 27/ 99 0.55 02/ 27/ 99 0.72 02/ 27/ 99 1.45 02/ 28/ 99 0.44 03/ 01/ 99 1.26 03/ 01/ 99 0.86 03/ 02/ 99 0.42 03/ 02/ 99 0.57 03/ 02/ 99 0.42 03/ 03/ 99 0.28 03/ 03/ 99 2.25 03/ 05/ 99 1.40 03/ 05/ 99 0.99 03/ 05/ 99 0.67 03/ 06/ 99 0.43 03/ 06/ 99 0.99 03/ 07/ 99 1.28 03/ 07/ 99 0.86 03/ 08/ 99 0.99 03/ 08/ 99 0.85 03/ 09/ 99 0.26 03/ 09/ 99 0.42 03/ 10/ 99 0.29 03/ 10/ 99 0.26 03/ 10/ 99 0.41 03/ 11/ 99 0.44 03/ 11/ 99 0.42 03/ 12/ 99 0.28 03/ 12/ 99 0.43 03/ 13/ 99 2.26 03/ 13/ 99 2.10 03/ 13/ 99 1.44 03/ 14/ 99 2.58 03/ 15/ 99 3.32 03/ 15/ 99 1.92 03/ 16/ 99 0.98 03/ 16/ 99 1.63 03/ 16/ 99 0.71 03/ 17/ 99 2.61 03/ 17/ 99 1.28 03/ 18/ 99 0.69 03/ 18/ 99 2.17 03/ 19/ 99 1.26 03/ 19/ 99 0.41 03/ 19/ 99 0.84 03/ 20/ 99 0.26 03/ 21/ 99 1.13 03/ 21/ 99 0.68 03/ 21/ 99 0.96 03/ 22/ 99 0.86 03/ 22/ 99 0.42 03/ 23/ 99 0.26 03/ 23/ 99 17.72 03/ 23/ 99 1.39 03/ 24/ 99 0.70 03/ 24/ 99 0.85 03/ 25/ 99 2.27 03/ 25/ 99 1.13 03/ 25/ 99 0.71 03/ 26/ 99 11.30 03/ 27/ 99 7.33 03/ 27/ 99 2.53 03/ 27/ 99 4.53 03/ 28/ 99 3.28 03/ 28/ 99 4.37 03/ 29/ 99 1.15 03/ 29/ 99 2.05 03/ 30/ 99 2.36 03/ 31/ 99 0.82 04/ 01/ 99 2.05 04/ 01/ 99 1.02 04/ 01/ 99 0.41 04/ 02/ 99 1.15 04/ 02/ 99 1.60 04/ 03/ 99 18.54 04/ 03/ 99 3.98 04/ 03/ 99 0.99 04/ 05/ 99 0.82 04/ 05/ 99 0.95 04/ 06/ 99 5.27 04/ 06/ 99 6.87 04/ 07/ 99 0.66 04/ 07/ 99 1.23 04/ 07/ 99 0.80 04/ 07/ 99 0.67 04/ 08/ 99 1.10 04/ 08/ 99 0.79 04/ 09/ 99 0.65 04/ 09/ 99 0.54 04/ 10/ 99 0.53 04/ 10/ 99 0.68 04/ 10/ 99 0.95 04/ 11/ 99 0.40 04/ 12/ 99 1.08 04/ 13/ 99 1.14 04/ 13/ 99 0.84 04/ 13/ 99 1.51 04/ 14/ 99 0.52 04/ 14/ 99 0.78 04/ 15/ 99 0.54 04/ 15/ 99 0.26 04/ 16/ 99 2.72 04/ 16/ 99 0.55 04/ 17/ 99 0.64 04/ 17/ 99 0.53 04/ 18/ 99 0.80 04/ 18/ 99 0.54 04/ 19/ 99 0.40 04/ 19/ 99 0.26 04/ 20/ 99 0.39 04/ 20/ 99 0.40 04/ 20/ 99 0.39 04/ 21/ 99 0.68 04/ 21/ 99 0.92 04/ 22/ 99 0.53 04/ 22/ 99 0.83 04/ 22/ 99 0.53 04/ 23/ 99 0.42 04/ 23/ 99 0.82 04/ 23/ 99 0.54 04/ 24/ 99 0.26 04/ 24/ 99 0.39 04/ 24/ 99 0.26 04/ 25/ 99 0.40 04/ 25/ 99 0.54 04/ 26/ 99 0.28 04/ 26/ 99 0.52 04/ 27/ 99 4.99 04/ 27/ 99 6.72 04/ 27/ 99 2.38 04/ 28/ 99 0.27 04/ 28/ 99 0.40 04/ 28/ 99 1.81 04/ 29/ 99 2.46 04/ 30/ 99 2.03 04/ 30/ 99 2.85 04/ 30/ 99 2.14 04/ 30/ 99 0.73 05/ 01/ 99 0.96 05/ 02/ 99 0.74 05/ 02/ 99 1.64 05/ 03/ 99 0.39 05/ 03/ 99 0.52 05/ 03/ 99 0.68 05/ 03/ 99 0.26 05/ 04/ 99 0.91 05/ 04/ 99 1.23 05/ 05/ 99 0.68 05/ 05/ 99 0.95 05/ 06/ 99 0.69 05/ 06/ 99 0.81 05/ 07/ 99 0.40 05/ 09/ 99 0.26 05/ 10/ 99 0.38 05/ 10/ 99 0.65 05/ 13/ 99 0.27 05/ 14/ 99 0.27 05/ 14/ 99 0.37 05/ 16/ 99 0.54 05/ 17/ 99 0.66 05/ 17/ 99 0.54 05/ 18/ 99 0.26 05/ 18/ 99 0.26 05/ 19/ 99 1.08 05/ 20/ 99 1.71 05/ 21/ 99 1.58 05/ 21/ 99 2.48 05/ 21/ 99 0.53 05/ 22/ 99 0.95 05/ 22/ 99 0.67 05/ 23/ 99 0.53 05/ 23/ 99 0.53 05/ 24/ 99 0.40 05/ 24/ 99 1.22 05/ 24/ 99 0.79 05/ 25/ 99 0.67 05/ 25/ 99 0.95 05/ 26/ 99 0.53 05/ 26/ 99 1.36 05/ 27/ 99 0.92 05/ 28/ 99 0.26 05/ 31/ 99 1.51 06/ 01/ 99 0.95 06/ 01/ 99 0.26 06/ 02/ 99 0.69 06/ 03/ 99 0.49 06/ 03/ 99 0.42 06/ 03/ 99 0.55 06/ 04/ 99 0.26 06/ 04/ 99 0.68 06/ 05/ 99 0.40 06/ 06/ 99 1.08 06/ 07/ 99 0.79 06/ 07/ 99 1.45 06/ 08/ 99 0.55 06/ 08/ 99 0.81 06/ 09/ 99 0.39 06/ 09/ 99 0.39 06/ 09/ 99 0.65 06/ 10/ 99 0.63 06/ 10/ 99 0.67 06/ 10/ 99 1.10 06/ 11/ 99 0.26 06/ 11/ 99 1.20 06/ 11/ 99 0.53 06/ 12/ 99 0.26 06/ 12/ 99 0.66 06/ 13/ 99 0.53 06/ 14/ 99 0.26 06/ 14/ 99 0.40 06/ 14/ 99 0.40 06/ 15/ 99 0.26 06/ 15/ 99 0.26 06/ 16/ 99 0.27 06/ 16/ 99 0.52 06/ 17/ 99 0.26 06/ 17/ 99 0.33 06/ 18/ 99 0.26 06/ 18/ 99 0.40 06/ 18/ 99 0.26 06/ 19/ 99 4.41 06/ 19/ 99 0.54 06/ 20/ 99 0.28 06/ 20/ 99 0.52 06/ 21/ 99 0.26 06/ 21/ 99 0.53 06/ 22/ 99 0.27 06/ 22/ 99 0.66 06/ 22/ 99 0.52 06/ 23/ 99 0.40 06/ 23/ 99 0.39 06/ 24/ 99 0.52 06/ 24/ 99 0.26 06/ 24/ 99 0.26 06/ 25/ 99 1.95 06/ 25/ 99 0.82 06/ 25/ 99 0.53 06/ 27/ 99 0.81 06/ 27/ 99 0.63 06/ 28/ 99 0.39 06/ 28/ 99 0.54 06/ 29/ 99 0.26 06/ 29/ 99 0.26 06/ 29/ 99 0.39 06/ 30/ 99 0.39 06/ 30/ 99 0.66 07/ 01/ 99 0.75 07/ 01/ 99 0.34 07/ 02/ 99 0.26 07/ 02/ 99 0.26 07/ 03/ 99 0.31 07/ 03/ 99 0.26 07/ 03/ 99 0.26 07/ 05/ 99 0.69 07/ 06/ 99 0.26 07/ 06/ 99 0.53 07/ 07/ 99 0.26 07/ 07/ 99 0.26 07/ 08/ 99 0.27 07/ 08/ 99 0.39 07/ 08/ 99 0.39 07/ 09/ 99 1.00 07/ 09/ 99 0.54 07/ 09/ 99 0.68 07/ 10/ 99 1.08 07/ 10/ 99 0.67 07/ 11/ 99 0.55 07/ 12/ 99 0.67 07/ 12/ 99 0.64 07/ 13/ 99 0.26 07/ 13/ 99 0.26 07/ 14/ 99 0.26 07/ 14/ 99 0.39 07/ 15/ 99 1.38 07/ 15/ 99 0.26 07/ 16/ 99 0.26 07/ 16/ 99 0.26 07/ 17/ 99 0.26 07/ 17/ 99 0.26 07/ 17/ 99 0.26 07/ 18/ 99 0.26 07/ 18/ 99 0.26 07/ 19/ 99 0.32 07/ 20/ 99 0.26 07/ 21/ 99 0.26 07/ 21/ 99 10.82 07/ 22/ 99 2.25 07/ 22/ 99 1.69 07/ 23/ 99 0.98 07/ 23/ 99 0.49 07/ 23/ 99 0.32 07/ 24/ 99 0.39 07/ 24/ 99 0.49 07/ 25/ 99 1.25 07/ 26/ 99 1.51 07/ 26/ 99 2.74 07/ 27/ 99 3.56 07/ 27/ 99 1.10 07/ 28/ 99 1.41 07/ 28/ 99 1.94 07/ 29/ 99 3.36 07/ 30/ 99 3.44 07/ 30/ 99 0.65 07/ 31/ 99 0.80 07/ 31/ 99 0.82 08/ 01/ 99 0.33 08/ 02/ 99 1.02 08/ 02/ 99 0.49 08/ 03/ 99 1.55 08/ 03/ 99 2.94 08/ 04/ 99 0.49 08/ 04/ 99 0.32 08/ 04/ 99 0.26 08/ 05/ 99 0.48 08/ 05/ 99 0.50 08/ 06/ 99 0.66 08/ 06/ 99 1.01 08/ 07/ 99 2.27 08/ 08/ 99 0.81 08/ 09/ 99 0.64 08/ 09/ 99 0.83 08/ 10/ 99 3.51 08/ 10/ 99 1.17 08/ 10/ 99 0.84 08/ 11/ 99 1.56 08/ 11/ 99 0.97 08/ 12/ 99 0.83 08/ 12/ 99 0.39 08/ 13/ 99 1.33 08/ 13/ 99 0.83 08/ 14/ 99 1.34 08/ 14/ 99 0.81 08/ 15/ 99 0.32 08/ 15/ 99 0.80 08/ 16/ 99 0.99 08/ 16/ 99 0.62 08/ 17/ 99 3.36 08/ 17/ 99 0.64 08/ 17/ 99 1.14 08/ 18/ 99 2.01 08/ 18/ 99 2.06 08/ 19/ 99 2.47 08/ 19/ 99 0.27 08/ 19/ 99 0.81 08/ 20/ 99 0.83 08/ 20/ 99 0.98 08/ 21/ 99 1.31 08/ 21/ 99 0.96 08/ 22/ 99 0.82 08/ 22/ 99 0.62 08/ 23/ 99 0.84 08/ 24/ 99 0.46 08/ 24/ 99 0.49 08/ 24/ 99 0.66 08/ 25/ 99 0.99 08/ 25/ 99 0.84 08/ 25/ 99 0.66 08/ 26/ 99 0.26 08/ 26/ 99 0.39 08/ 27/ 99 0.38 08/ 27/ 99 0.28 08/ 27/ 99 0.38 08/ 28/ 99 0.59 08/ 28/ 99 0.26 08/ 29/ 99 0.49 08/ 30/ 99 0.59 08/ 30/ 99 0.60 08/ 30/ 99 0.65 08/ 31/ 99 0.68 08/ 31/ 99 0.48 08/ 31/ 99 0.81 09/ 01/ 99 0.64 09/ 02/ 99 4.06 09/ 02/ 99 0.33 09/ 03/ 99 2.85 09/ 04/ 99 0.65 09/ 05/ 99 0.83 09/ 05/ 99 1.00 09/ 08/ 99 0.83 09/ 08/ 99 1.49 09/ 11/ 99 0.33 09/ 14/ 99 0.33 09/ 15/ 99 1.32 09/ 16/ 99 0.98 09/ 17/ 99 0.67 09/ 20/ 99 1.72 09/ 20/ 99 0.26 09/ 21/ 99 0.84 09/ 23/ 99 2.26 09/ 24/ 99 1.18 09/ 26/ 99 1.36 09/ 27/ 99 1.00 09/ 28/ 99 1.29 09/ 28/ 99 3.74 09/ 29/ 99 1.84 09/ 29/ 99 7.12 09/ 29/ 99 2.21 09/ 30/ 99 2.57 09/ 30/ 99 4.12 09/ 30/ 99 0.98 10/ 01/ 99 7.52 10/ 01/ 99 0.55 10/ 02/ 99 1.18 10/ 02/ 99 0.86 10/ 02/ 99 1.18 10/ 03/ 99 1.28 10/ 04/ 99 0.37 10/ 04/ 99 0.57 10/ 05/ 99 1.62 10/ 05/ 99 1.79 10/ 05/ 99 0.76 10/ 06/ 99 0.26 10/ 06/ 99 0.48 10/ 06/ 99 0.81 10/ 07/ 99 0.33 10/ 07/ 99 0.79 10/ 08/ 99 0.82 10/ 08/ 99 0.82 10/ 08/ 99 0.49 10/ 09/ 99 0.99 10/ 09/ 99 0.66 10/ 10/ 99 0.33 10/ 10/ 99 1.17 10/ 10/ 99 0.48 10/ 12/ 99 0.95 10/ 13/ 99 18.13 10/ 13/ 99 1.84 10/ 14/ 99 0.86 10/ 14/ 99 3.83 10/ 14/ 99 0.68 10/ 15/ 99 3.84 10/ 15/ 99 0.29 10/ 16/ 99 1.11 10/ 16/ 99 0.81 10/ 16/ 99 1.15 10/ 17/ 99 0.49 10/ 17/ 99 0.85 10/ 18/ 99 0.83 10/ 18/ 99 0.65 10/ 19/ 99 0.68 10/ 20/ 99 0.45 10/ 20/ 99 6.06 10/ 20/ 99 0.43 10/ 21/ 99 1.63 10/ 21/ 99 2.53 10/ 21/ 99 0.64 10/ 22/ 99 4.73 10/ 22/ 99 1.93 10/ 23/ 99 2.58 10/ 23/ 99 3.31 10/ 23/ 99 2.39 10/ 24/ 99 2.41 10/ 24/ 99 1.48 10/ 25/ 99 1.35 10/ 25/ 99 0.65 10/ 26/ 99 1.18 10/ 26/ 99 0.80 10/ 27/ 99 0.98 10/ 27/ 99 0.32 10/ 28/ 99 0.26 10/ 28/ 99 0.83 10/ 28/ 99 1.01 10/ 29/ 99 1.83 10/ 29/ 99 0.98 10/ 30/ 99 1.61 10/ 30/ 99 0.82 10/ 31/ 99 1.02 10/ 31/ 99 1.16 11/ 01/ 99 0.82 11/ 01/ 99 0.48 11/ 02/ 99 1.34 11/ 02/ 99 1.46 11/ 02/ 99 0.82 11/ 03/ 99 2.33 11/ 03/ 99 2.99 11/ 03/ 99 0.86 11/ 04/ 99 0.72 11/ 05/ 99 1.24 11/ 05/ 99 0.91 11/ 06/ 99 1.04 11/ 06/ 99 1.15 11/ 06/ 99 0.54 11/ 07/ 99 1.47 11/ 07/ 99 0.42 11/ 08/ 99 1.66 11/ 08/ 99 1.54 11/ 09/ 99 1.06 11/ 09/ 99 3.71 11/ 10/ 99 1.36 11/ 10/ 99 1.15 11/ 11/ 99 0.82 11/ 11/ 99 1.14 11/ 11/ 99 1.34 11/ 12/ 99 5.91 11/ 12/ 99 3.51 11/ 12/ 99 2.04 11/ 13/ 99 2.25 11/ 13/ 99 1.79 11/ 14/ 99 0.97 11/ 15/ 99 1.57 11/ 15/ 99 0.84 11/ 16/ 99 1.47 11/ 16/ 99 1.07 11/ 16/ 99 1.60 11/ 17/ 99 1.07 11/ 17/ 99 1.48 11/ 18/ 99 4.62 11/ 18/ 99 1.21 11/ 18/ 99 2.42 11/ 18/ 99 2.34 11/ 19/ 99 1.04 11/ 20/ 99 2.76 11/ 21/ 99 1.94 11/ 21/ 99 4.13 11/ 21/ 99 2.26 11/ 22/ 99 1.05 11/ 22/ 99 1.03 11/ 22/ 99 2.33 11/ 23/ 99 3.93 11/ 23/ 99 2.43 11/ 24/ 99 1.85 11/ 24/ 99 2.06 11/ 24/ 99 1.52 11/ 27/ 99 2.90 11/ 27/ 99 1.90 11/ 27/ 99 2.68 11/ 27/ 99 3.14 11/ 28/ 99 3.61 11/ 28/ 99 1.61 11/ 29/ 99 2.12 11/ 29/ 99 2.35 11/ 29/ 99 2.69 11/ 30/ 99 1.21 11/ 30/ 99 2.07 12/ 01/ 99 0.95 12/ 02/ 99 1.44 12/ 02/ 99 1.79 12/ 03/ 99 2.96 12/ 03/ 99 0.74 12/ 04/ 99 1.59 12/ 05/ 99 0.64 12/ 05/ 99 1.02 12/ 06/ 99 2.03 12/ 06/ 99 1.86 12/ 07/ 99 1.13 12/ 07/ 99 1.15 12/ 07/ 99 1.84 12/ 08/ 99 0.76 12/ 08/ 99 0.50 12/ 08/ 99 0.65 12/ 09/ 99 0.48 12/ 09/ 99 0.32 12/ 09/ 99 0.30 12/ 09/ 99 0.78 12/ 10/ 99 0.67 12/ 10/ 99 1.17 12/ 10/ 99 1.32 12/ 11/ 99 1.48 12/ 11/ 99 1.03 12/ 12/ 99 0.90 12/ 12/ 99 0.84 12/ 13/ 99 0.49 12/ 13/ 99 0.82 12/ 14/ 99 0.83 12/ 14/ 99 0.64 12/ 15/ 99 0.65 12/ 15/ 99 0.90 12/ 16/ 99 0.32 12/ 16/ 99 0.58 12/ 16/ 99 1.01 12/ 16/ 99 0.72 12/ 17/ 99 1.30 12/ 17/ 99 0.26 12/ 18/ 99 0.52 12/ 18/ 99 0.47 12/ 19/ 99 0.26 12/ 19/ 99 0.26 12/ 20/ 99 0.38 12/ 20/ 99 1.32 12/ 21/ 99 2.58 12/ 21/ 99 1.38 12/ 21/ 99 1.55 12/ 22/ 99 1.26 12/ 22/ 99 0.26 12/ 22/ 99 0.59 12/ 23/ 99 0.80 12/ 23/ 99 1.57 12/ 23/ 99 1.08 12/ 26/ 99 1.06 12/ 27/ 99 1.73 12/ 27/ 99 1.42 12/ 28/ 99 0.47 12/ 28/ 99 0.43 12/ 28/ 99 0.43 12/ 29/ 99 1.57


Technical Support Document

For the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions of the Document
Entitled “Cecil County, Maryland

8-Hour Ozone

State Implementation Plan and Base Year Inventory

SIP Revision:

07-05

June 15, 2007

TSD Prepared June, 2012

Todd A. Ellsworth

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis, 3AP40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

/S/

____________________________________________

Reviewed by Walter Wilkie, Associate Director,

Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis (3AP40)

June 22, 2012

_________________

Date Signed

Technical Support Document

For the Modeling and Weight of Evidence (WOE) Portions of the Document
Entitled “Cecil County, Maryland

8-Hour Ozone

State Implementation Plan and Base Year Inventory

SIP Revision:

07-05

June 15, 2007”

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) evaluation of the modeling and WOE
portions of Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) entitled
“Maryland State Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Reasonable Further Progress and
Attainment Demonstration, June 2007”, hereafter referred to as the
Maryland SIP.  Maryland is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City ozone nonattainment area (Philadelphia area).  The Philadelphia
area is comprised of 18 counties in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware
and Maryland.  Classified as a “moderate” nonattainment area, the
Philadelphia area is required to attain the NAAQS by June 2010, in
effect, by the ozone season of 2009.

The purpose of this TSD is to provide more detailed information than can
be contained in the official notice published in the Federal Register.
Readers who need more information than we provide in this TSD or want to
review the modeling in more detail should read the above referenced
Maryland SIP.

Introduction to the Maryland State Implementation Plan for Ozone

The Maryland SIP includes plans to reduce ozone-causing emissions for
Maryland’s portion of the Philadelphia Area.  The Plan also includes
modeling that will predict whether the area will meet the ozone standard
by the due date.  This TSD reviews modeling and WOE portions of the
Maryland SIP.  This TSD reviews Maryland’s documentation of modeling
and WOE that attempts to show attainment of the eight-hour ozone
standard by the 2009 ozone season.  All of the states in the
northeastern United States cooperated via the Ozone Transport
Commission’s (OTC) Modeling Committee to prepare the modeling that was
performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and supporting organizations.

Maryland believes that their SIP modeling when combined with additional
supporting analyses (Weight of Evidence) (WOE) “Demonstrates that the
entire Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD moderate
non-attainment area will attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2009”.

What Are The Components Of A Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

Modeling Process Overview

The OTC Modeling Committee used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality
model (CMAQ) version 4.4 as its photochemical grid model.  The model
uses simulations of chemical reactions, emission of ozone precursors and
a sophisticated meteorological model to produce ozone concentrations
over the eastern United States.  The meteorological data used in the
meteorological model was for the base year ozone season of 2002.  The
photochemical grid model was run with the base year meteorology and base
year emissions to determine if the model performance was satisfactory.
Once the model performance was determined to be adequate, 2009 ozone
concentrations were modeled by running the model with projected
emissions for 2009 and the original 2002 meteorology.    The meteorology
was held constant so that the results of changing the emissions would
not be influenced by changing meteorology.  The EPA modeling guidance
recommends that states use the modeled ozone concentrations in a
relative sense and not rely solely on the concentrations the model
predicts for the attainment year (2009).  The relative response factor
(RRF) used in the modeled attainment test is computed by taking the
ratio of the mean of the 8-hour daily maximum predictions in the future
to the mean of the 8-hour daily maximum predictions with baseline
emissions, over all relevant days. The base year ozone design values at
each monitor are then multiplied by the monitor-specific RRF to produce
an attainment year design value.  If the result is less than or equal to
84 ppb, at all locations, the modeling system will have predicted
attainment of the ozone air quality standard.

The Regulatory Framework

Section 110 (a) (2) (k) of the Clean Air Act requires states to prepare
air quality modeling to show how they will meet ambient air quality
standards.   EPA determined that areas classified as ‘moderate’ or
above must use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical
method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone health-based standard by the
required attainment date (40 CFR 51.908, published at 70 FR 71612 on
November 29, 2005).  In 40 CFR 51.903, published at 69 FR 23951 on April
30, 2004, EPA specified how areas would be classified with regard to the
eight-hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997.  At 69 FR 23858, on April
30, 2004, EPA followed these procedures and classified the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD and ozone nonattainment
area as moderate, so they must attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard
by June 2010.  Since the attainment date is June 2010 for moderate
areas, states must achieve emission reductions by the ozone season of
2009 in order for ozone concentrations to be reduced, and show
attainment, during the last complete ozone season before the 2010
deadline.

The modeling guidance lists nine steps for preparing modeling to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard.

1. Develop a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed.

2. Develop a modeling/analysis protocol.

3. Select an appropriate model to support the demonstration.

4. Select appropriate meteorological time periods to model.

5. Choose an appropriate area to model with appropriate
horizontal/vertical resolution
   and establish the initial and boundary conditions that are suitable
for the application.

6. Generate meteorological inputs to the air quality model.

7. Generate emissions inputs to the air quality model.

8. Run the air quality model with base case emissions and evaluate the
performance.

    Perform diagnostic tests to improve the model, as necessary.

9. Perform future year modeling (including additional control
strategies, if necessary) and

    apply the attainment test.

How Did Maryland Address All Of The Components Of A Modeled Attainment
Demonstration?

The Maryland SIP addresses each of the elements of a modeled attainment
demonstration as follows:

Conceptual description of the problem

A conceptual model describes how weather patterns affect the formation
and transport of ozone, accounting for emissions and photochemistry.
The Maryland SIP describes the climatology that produces high ozone
concentrations in the Philadelphia area.  On warm sunny days, winds from
the southwest and west blow emissions from sources of ozone-forming
chemicals both at the surface and aloft toward the Philadelphia area.
In addition, emissions from large combustion sources in the Ohio Valley
and other areas are brought eastward by upper level winds to the east
coast, augmenting the ozone formed locally.  A complete conceptual
description of the ozone problem in the Philadelphia area is contained
in Section 12.1 of the Maryland SIP.

Modeling/analysis protocol

The Ozone Transport Commission’s (OTC’s) Modeling Committee
developed a protocol for modeling the ozone problem in the northeastern
United States.  The modeling protocol is located in Appendix H-1 of the
Maryland SIP.  It adequately describes how the photochemical grid model
will be used in the ozone attainment plans.

The Model Used in the Attainment Demonstration

By agreement of the OTC, NYSDEC ran the Community Multi-scale Air
Quality Model version 4.4 (CMAQ) for the states in the northeast ozone
transport region, including Maryland.  CMAQ is an acceptable model,
listed in the photochemical modeling guidance as a currently used
photochemical grid model.  EPA agrees CMAQ is appropriate for this
modeling demonstration.  The inputs to the model are described in
Section 12.2 of the Maryland SIP.

Meteorological Time Periods Used in the Modeling

Section 12.2 of the Maryland SIP notes that the OTC Modeling Committee
agreed to model the entire ozone season of 2002.  Using the entire ozone
season of 2002 covers many different kinds of ozone episodes and exceeds
EPA’s recommendations for episode selection.  2002 was a good year to
model because it was the base year for the attainment plans and as a
whole is representative of meteorological conditions conducive to
elevated concentrations of ozone.

Meteorological Data Used in the Air Quality Model

The OTC Modeling Committee decided to use a prognostic meteorological
model that provides life-like meteorological inputs to the photochemical
grid model.  The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6
was chosen for the modeling analysis.  The MM5 model provides a
reasonable representation of weather conditions at the surface and
aloft.  A summary of the MM5 application is contained in Section 12.2 of
the Maryland SIP.

Domain of the Model, Horizontal/Vertical Resolution and the Initial and
Boundary Conditions

The modeling domain extends from Maine to Florida and out in the
Atlantic Ocean on the east and west to the Mississippi River.  The size
of the modeling domain was made large enough to include all emission
sources that affect ozone formation in the northeastern United States.
Even this boundary is defined by a larger photochemical modeling domain
that covers much of North America.  Over the northeastern United States,
the model used 12 kilometer grid cells. The Philadelphia area is
included in the 12 kilometer grid cell area.  The OTC Modeling Committee
used a 12-kilometer grid size for the areas in and near its states to
provide a fine enough grid resolution to adequately capture the ozone
patterns experienced in the ozone transport region (OTR).  The OTC
Modeling Committee chose to use a 12 kilometer grid resolution based on
its states’ experiences with the one-hour ozone attainment modeling
that indicated that modeling at finer resolutions than 12 kilometers
would not result in increased model accuracy.  Outside the local areas
the grid resolution used in the modeling is 36 kilometers.  The
selection of model domains and horizontal grid resolution was deemed
acceptable to EPA.  The grid resolution, modeling domain and boundary
conditions are described in Section 12.2 of the Maryland SIP.

Vertical resolution is the number of layers and the size of each layer
in the model.  The layers in the photochemical grid model were set up to
be compatible with the model that produced weather conditions for the
photochemical grid model.  The vertical grid resolution used in the
modeling is described in Section 12.2 of the Maryland SIP.  The vertical
resolution used in the modeling exercise followed EPA’s modeling
guidance and therefore adequately represents the atmosphere where ozone
forms and is transported.

Emissions Used in the Air Quality Model
                                  The emissions data for 2002 were
generated by individual states within the OTR and assembled and
processed through the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU),
a Regional Planning Organization (RPO). These emissions were then
processed by NYSDEC using the SMOKE emissions processor to provide CMAQ
compatible inputs.   The 2002 emissions for the non-OTR areas within the
modeling domain were obtained from the corresponding RPOs and were
processed using SMOKE, in a manner similar to that of the OTR emissions.

The OTR states, through MANE-VU, contracted MACTEC Federal Programs
(called Contractor) to develop 2009, 2012 and 2018 inventories based
upon 2002 inventories that the states had previously developed for use
in the base-year model work. The Contractor, in consultation with the
states, developed the necessary growth and control factors and applied
to the 2002 inventory. Emissions for mobile sources and the electric
energy generating units (EGUs) was not part of the Contractor’s
effort. .  To generate on-road mobile emissions, the states provided the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and the Northeast
States for coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) with appropriate
MOBILE 6 input files along with the projected vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), which was coupled with hourly “gridded temperature”
information. As for the emissions from the EGU sector, the inter-RPO
work group utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to develop the
state and unit-level emissions.  These inventories are identified as
2009 on the way (2009OTW), since they reflect all emission control
measures that were promulgated or would become effective on or before
2009.

Details of emissions processing are provided in Appendices H-10 of the
Maryland SIP.

Base Case Run Model Performance Evaluation

NY DEC performed a model evaluation for the OTC to determine how well
CMAQ reproduced the Philadelphia nonattainment area’s 2002 ozone
season concentrations.  Model evaluation followed performance statistics
outlined in EPA modeling guidance.

The OTC’s evaluation included performance statistics for all monitors
inside the Philadelphia nonattainment area.  The model performance
evaluation results are presented in included in Appendix H-12 the
Maryland SIP.  The analysis indicates the modeling system does an
adequate job of estimating the eight-hour surface ozone concentrations
throughout the Philadelphia area.

2009 Control Case Modeling and the Modeled Attainment Test

The photochemical grid model used with projected emissions for 2009,
including emission changes due to regulations the states are planning to
implement and expected growth by the 2009 ozone season.

Meteorological conditions from 2002, the same as the base year modeling,
were used in the 2009 modeling. Using the base case meteorology allows
the effect of changes in states’ emissions to be determined without
being influenced by yearly fluctuations in meteorology and is consistent
with EPA guidance.

As described earlier in this TSD, the attainment test used in the
Philadelphia area                    modeling demonstration involved the
application of model-based RRFs to base year design values at each
monitor to produce projected future year design values (2009).  The
projected 2009 design values represent design values that should result
from emission controls Maryland and other states planned to have in
place in 2009.  The 2009 design values should be less than or equal to
84 ppb at all monitoring stations to meet the attainment test.  The SIP
modeling predicts that in 2009, Philadelphia area will not pass the
attainment test since design values are projected to be over the 84 ppb
standard (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 Modeled Design Value

Monitor ID	Site Name	County	State	DVC (ppm)	RRF OTB/OTW V4	2009 Model DV
(ppm)	2009 Monitored   (ppm)

100010002	Killens Pond	Kent	DE	88	0.8934	78	75

100031007	Lums Pond	New Castle	DE	91	0.8462	77	75

100031010	Brandywine	New Castle	DE	93	0.8781	81	78

100031013	Bellefonte	New Castle	DE	89	0.8759	77	74

100051002	Seaford	Sussex	DE	90	0.8462	76	76

100051003	Lewes	Sussex	DE	86	0.8956	77	76

240150003	Fair Hill	Cecil	MD	98	0.8336	81	84

340010005	Nacote Creek	Atlantic	NJ	88	0.8762	77	72

340070003	Camden	Camden	NJ	98	0.8996	88	87

340071001	Ancora State Hospital	Camden	NJ	100	0.8733	87	81

340110007	Millville	Cumberland	NJ	94	0.8486	79	78

340150002	Clarksboro	Gloucester	NJ	98	0.9004	88	83

340210005	Rider College	Mercer	NJ	97	0.8908	86	81

340290006	Colliers Mills	Ocean	NJ	107	0.8703	91	80

420170012	Bristol	Bucks	PA	99	0.8976	88	88

420290100	New Garden Airport	Chester	PA	94	0.8387	78	77

420450002	Chester	Delaware	PA	91	0.8705	79	77

420910013	Norristown	Montgomery	PA	92	0.8861	81	79

421010004	AMS Lab	Philadelphia	PA	72	0.9081	65	64

421010014	Roxboro	Philadelphia	PA	91	0.9070	82	81

421010024	NE Airport	Philadelphia	PA	97	0.9035	87	84

421010136	Elmwood	Philadelphia	PA	84	0.9070	76	82

Summary of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results

In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling presented in the
Maryland SIP meets EPA’s guidelines and when used with the methods
recommended in EPA’s modeling guidance, is acceptable to EPA.  When
EPA’s attainment test is applied to the modeling results, the 2009
ozone design value is predicted to be 91 ppb in the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD ozone nonattainment
area.  Thus, based on EPA’s modeled attainment test, Philadelphia area
has not demonstrated that it will reach attainment of the ozone standard
in the 2009 attainment year with the modeled emission reduction
strategies committed to by the OTC states.  To make a case for
attainment, Maryland decided to use WOE to demonstrate attainment of the
ozone standard in the Philadelphia area.

Weight of Evidence Demonstration

EPA’s modeling guidance describes how to use a photochemical grid
model and additional analytical methods to complete a WOE analysis to
estimate if emissions control strategies will lead to attainment of the
eight-hour NAAQS for ozone.  A WOE analysis is a supporting analysis
that helps to determine if the results of the photochemical modeling
system are correctly (or not correctly) predicting future air quality.

The WOE portion of the Maryland SIP describes the analyses performed,
databases used, key assumptions and outcomes of each analysis, and why
the evidence, viewed as a whole, supports a conclusion that the
Philadelphia nonattainment area will attain the NAAQS despite the model
prediction that some monitors’ future design values exceed the current
eight-hour ozone standard.

Table 2 outlines under what circumstances a WOE demonstration is needed.
 Model-predicted design values are summarized above in Table 1.  Of the
twenty-two (22) ozone monitors in the Philadelphia nonattainment area
only eight (8) exceed the threshold (82 ppb) where the EPA modeling
guidance recommends a WOE demonstration.  Three of the monitors fall
within the 82-87 ppb threshold outlined in Table 1 and four others fall
within the last category listed in the WOE table included in the US EPA
guidance.   The Roxboro monitor is excluded from the WOE analysis since
its current design value is significantly lower than the eight-hour
standard (modeled 82 ppb, actual monitored 78 ppb).

The WOE analysis for the remaining seven monitors includes the
following:

A comparison of model-predicted 2009 ozone design values and monitored
design values for 2006 and 2009

An analysis of recent ozone trends in the Philadelphia nonattainment
area,

Alternative methods for calculating the 2009 ozone design value.

Table 2.EPA Guidelines for Supplemental Analyses and Weight of Evidence
Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test	Supplemental Analyses

Future Design Value < 82 ppb, all monitor sites	Basic supplemental
analyses should be completed to confirm the outcome of the modeled
attainment test

Future Design Value 82 - 87 ppb, at one or more sites/grid cells	A
weight of evidence demonstration should be conducted to determine if
aggregate supplemental analyses support the modeled attainment test

Future Design Value > 88 ppb, at one or more sites/grid cells	More
qualitative results are unlikely to support a conclusion differing from
the outcome of the modeled attainment test.

                                           Modeled Concentrations vs.
Monitored Design Values

Table 3 below lists the OTC modeled 2009 design values and the 2006-2011
monitored design values.  Maryland did not have access monitored ambient
ozone data from 2007-2011ambient data when it wrote its SIP. Because the
modeled 2009 and projected 2006 design values are surprisingly close to
one another with most modeled concentrations only slightly lower than
the monitored 2006 design values, Maryland SIP suggests that additional
reductions over the next three ozone seasons might bring several of the
monitors that are currently just over the eight-hour ozone standard into
attainment by the attainment date.  Classified as a “moderate”
nonattainment area, the Philadelphia area is required to attain the
NAAQS by June 2010, in effect, by end of 2009 ozone season.   As shown
in Table 3 by the end of the 2009 ozone season only two ozone monitors
(Bristol & Camden) were still monitoring nonattainment. However the 4th
high monitored 8-hour values in 2009 were less than or equal to 84 ppb,
the level needed to qualify for a one year extension of the attainment
date.  As a result, the EPA granted the Philadelphia area a one year
extension of the attainment date to June 2011 or effectively by the end
of the 2010 ozone season.

Additionally, the 2009 data presented Table 3 and earlier in Table 1
show that the model is over predicting the monitored design values by
anywhere from 1-13 ppb in 19 out of the 22 cases.

Table 3.  Modeled vs. Monitored Design Values

Monitor	Site ID Number	2009 Modeled   DV	2006 Monitored DV	2007
Monitored DV 	 2008  Monitored DV	2009  Monitored DV	2010  Monitored DV
2011  Monitored DV

Fairhill - CECIL CO, MD	240150003	81	90	93	90	84	80	81

Colliers Mills - OCEAN CO, NJ	340290006	91	93	92	87	80	81	81

Rider College - MERCER CO, NJ	340210005	86	87	91	87	81	78	78

Ancora State Hospital - CAMDEN CO, NJ	340071001	87	89	88	86	81	80	80

Camden - CAMDEN CO, NJ	340070003	88	84	88	87	87	83

	Clarksboro - GLOUCESTER CO, NJ	340155001	88	86	91	87	83	81	82

Bristol - BUCKS CO, PA	420170012	88	86	92	92	88	83	80

Northeast Airport - PHILADELPHIA CO, PA	421010024	87	90	91	89	84	82	83

    Design Value Trends

The Maryland SIP states that there have been significant declines in the
Philadelphia nonattainment area’s eight-hour ozone design values over
the last several decades.  Significant declines did occur after
enactment of the NOx SIP Call in the 2003/2004 period.  The data in
Table 4 show that ozone design values have decreased sharply after 2003.
 EPA’s study of the effect of the NOx SIP Call has documented the
beneficial effects of the NOx SIP Call emission reductions that were in
place by the 2004 ozone season across the eastern United States

Since 2004, design values have not continued to decrease as sharply for
several reasons.  First, the 2004 ozone season was cooler than normal,
so the decreases in ozone due to additional controls have been offset
somewhat by higher concentrations as the areas have returned to more
typical summertime conditions.  Second, current reductions in ozone and
precursors transported from the Midwest are not as large as the
decreases that occurred while the NOx SIP Call was implemented.  However
additional emission reductions have continued to occur due mostly local
controls in each nonattainment area and a few reductions in major
sources due to States’ initiatives in the Ozone Transport Region.

As Table 4 shows, the monitored ozone design values for each of the
Philadelphia area monitors continued to decline and now show attainment
beginning in 2010 and continue to show attainment in 2011.

Table 4. Recent Ozone Design Value Trends for Philadelphia Area Monitors

Monitor ID	Site Name	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	     2008	      2009
2010	     2011

100010002	Killens Pond	0.089	0.084	0.080	0.080	0.081	0.081	0.075	0.074
0.071

100031007	Lums Pond	0.093	0.084	0.080	0.078	0.082	0.080	0.075	0.075
0.075

100031010	Brandywine	0.093	0.089	0.082	0.082	0.083	0.083	0.078	0.076
0.075

100031013	Bellefonte	0.090	0.085	0.082	0.081	0.081	0.078	0.074	0.075
0.077

100051002	Seaford	0.091	0.085	0.082	0.080	0.082	0.081	0.076	0.077	0.076

100051003	Lewes	0.088	0.085	0.084	0.082	0.082	0.079	0.076	0.077	0.075

240150003	Fair Hill	0.100	0.094	0.088	0.090	0.093	0.090	0.084	0.080
0.081

340010005	Nacote Creek	0.091	0.085	0.092	0.079	0.077	0.074	0.072

340070003	Camden	0.101	0.093	0.085	0.084	0.088	0.087	0.087	0.083

	340071001	Ancora State Hospital	0.101	0.095	0.091	0.088	0.089	0.086
0.081	0.080	0.080

340110007	Millville	0.095	0.89	0.084	0.083	0.083	0.081	0.078	0.076	0.071

340150002	Clarksboro	0.099	0.095	0.088	0.086	0.087	0.087	0.083	0.081
0.082

340210005	Rider College	0.100	0.092	0.086	0.087	0.091	0.087	0.081	0.078
0.078

340290006	Colliers Mills	0.109	0.102	0.094	0.093	0.092	0.087	0.080	0.081
0.081

420170012	Bristol	0.100	0.093	0.086	0.086	0.092	0.092	0.088	0.083	0.080

420290100	New Garden Airport	0.100	0.094	0.087	0.086	0.085	0.082	0.077
0.076	0.074

420450002	Chester	0.093	0.089	0.082	0.083	0.085	0.083	0.077	0.074	0.073

420910013	Norristown	0.094	0.089	0.086	0.085	0.086	0.084	0.079	0.078
0.077

421010004	AMS Lab	0.075	0.068	0.063	0.062	0.068	0.067	0.064	0.066	0.068

421010014	Roxboro	0.093	0.086	0.081	0.078	0.080	0.078	0.081

421010024	NE Airport	0.097	0.095	0.090	0.090	0.091	0.089	0.084	0.082
0.083

421010136	Elmwood	0.083	0.079	0.070	0.074	0.077	0.081	0.082

Alternative Baseline Design Value

                          Seven monitors within the Philadelphia area
are projected to exceed the current eight-hour ozone standard following
the US EPA’s recommended method.  The recommended baseline
concentration used in the attainment demonstration is the average of the
three eight-hour ozone design values that include the emission base year
(2002).  Thus the baseline concentration is the average of the 2002,
2003 and 2004 eight-hour ozone design values.

Many States in the Philadelphia area believe that by using the US EPA
recommended method for calculating a monitor’s baseline concentration,
undue weight is placed on the 2002 ozone season, one of the worst ozone
seasons since the late 1990s.  As alternative to the US EPA’s baseline
concentration calculation, a straight average of the 4th highs over the
same years (2000-2004) was used to calculate the baseline concentration.
 This approach weighs each year equally.

EPA guideline method baseline = 105.7 ppb

Maryland’s alternative baseline = 104.2 ppb

Table 5 lists the alternative baseline value and the projected 2009
concentration for the seven monitors that are projected to exceed the
current eight-hour ozone standard in 2009.  This reduces the modeled
2009 values slightly but the model is still over predicting the actual
monitored 2009 design values in six out of the seven cases.

Table 5. Alternative Baseline Concentration Analysis

Site Name	State	Alternative Baseline	OTW/OTB V4

RRF	Alternate 2009	2009 Monitored Design Value

Camden	NJ	94.0	0.8996	84	87

Ancora S.H.	NJ	98.6	0.8733	86	81

Clarksboro	NJ	96.4	0.9004	86	83

Rider College	NJ	95.6	0.8908	85	81

Colliers Mills	NJ	104.2	0.8703	90	80

Bristol	PA	96.6	0.8976	86	88

NE Phila	PA	94.6	0.9035	85	84

Alternative RRF

Maryland calculated 2009 modeled ozone design values by multiplying the
modeling baseline design values with a relative response factor (RRF) as
recommended by EPA’s photochemical modeling guidance.  At each
monitoring site, the state calculates the RRF associated with the
maximum eight-hour ozone concentration in the nine grid cells nearest
with the monitoring site on high ozone days.  Lower RRFs produce larger
 decreases in ozone between the base and future years.

RRFs were calculated for several different ozone levels; 2002 baseline
model concentrations ( 85 ppb, 2002 baseline model concentrations ( 90
ppb and 2002 baseline model concentrations ( 95 ppb.  The idea is to see
if the air-quality model predicts more reductions on days with higher
ozone concentrations (more benefit on the worst days).  Table 6 contains
the different RRFs based on the 2002 baseline model concentrations.

The projected modeled 2009 design values were recalculated using the
most beneficial alternative RRFs.  This reduces the modeled 2009 values
slightly but the model is still over predicting the actual monitored
2009 design values in six out of the seven cases.

Table 6. Alternative Projected 2009 Modeled Values Using Alternative
RRFs

Site	Alt RRF	DV Base	Alt Projected 2009	2009 Monitored Design Value

Camden	0.8915	98.0	87	87

Ancora S.H.	0.8723	99.7	86	81

Clarksboro	0.8875	98.0	86	83

Rider	0.8908	97.7	86	81

Colliers Mills	0.8703	105.7	91	80

Bristol	0.8892	99.0	88	88

NE Airport	0.8991	96.7	86	84

Combining Alternative Baseline Concentrations and Alternative RRFs

Table 7 contains the projected 2009 modeled design values from combining
the alternative baseline concentrations and the alternative RRF
calculations described in the previous two sections.  This reduces the
modeled 2009 values slightly but the model is still over predicting the
actual monitored 2009 design values in five out of the seven cases.

Table 7. Combined Effects of Alternative Baseline Concentrations and
Alternative RRFs

Site	Alt RRF	Alt DV Base	Alt Projected 2009	2009 Monitored Design Value

Camden	0.8915	94.0	83	87

Ancora S.H.	0.8723	98.6	86	81

Clarksboro	0.8875	96.4	85	83

Rider	0.8908	95.6	85	81

Colliers Mills	0.8703	104.2	90	80

Bristol	0.8892	96.6	85	88

NE Airport	0.8991	94.6	85	84

In summary, with the benefit of having the 2009 monitored design values,
it’s obvious that the model is over predicting the actual
concentrations, even when model adjustments are made to account for
model over prediction.

Summary of EPA’s Evaluation Maryland’s WOE Analysis

Maryland’s photochemical grid modeling results predict a 2009
projected design value well above the air quality health standard for
the Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area.  However, after taking into
account WOE arguments regarding model over prediction of the 2009
monitored design values and recent ozone design value trends, which show
attainment of the standard by 2010, the Maryland SIP has demonstrated
attainment of the ozone standard by the extended attainment date of June
2011.

Summary of EPA’s Technical Findings

The result of the photochemical grid modeling analysis using EPA’s
recommended methods predicts that the Philadelphia area ozone
nonattainment area will not attain the standard in the attainment year
of 2009.  In response to this, a number of WOE arguments have been made
that when taken together with recent air quality trends show attainment
of the ozone standard by the extended date of June 2011.  EPA’s review
of the attainment demonstration portion of the Maryland SIP determined
the following:

The Maryland SIP modeling uses an appropriate photochemical grid model
and follows EPA’s guidance methods and does not predict attainment in
2009.

The Maryland SIP relies on emission reductions resulting from a
commitment to adopt and implement a number of regulations prior to the
start of the 2009 ozone season.  Some of these were included in the
photochemical grid modeling.  These regulations would provide for
additional reductions from boilers, refineries, power generation,
consumer products and portable fuel containers.  Maryland’s own
analysis shows that Maryland must adopt all these measures, and
additional measures as well to show attainment by 2009.

In order to insure attainment, Maryland refers to additional measures
which were not included in the original photochemical modeling analysis.
 Most of these measures are not contained in the SIP and are not
committed to by Maryland as part of its attainment demonstration.  While
EPA encourages Maryland to continue to promote these worthwhile and
important emission reduction programs, the amount of tangible air
quality benefit is difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty.
However, implementing these measures will move the State’s
nonattainment areas closer to attainment.

 An evaluation of recent air quality data indicates that the
Philadelphia area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date of June 2011.

Recommendation of Approval of the Attainment Demonstration

EPA has carefully evaluated the information provided by Maryland and
other information it deems relevant to help understand what the air
quality was likely to be by the extended attainment date of June 2011 or
effectively by the end of the 2010 ozone season.  EPA concludes that
Maryland’s SIP satisfies the Clean Air Act’s requirement that State
Implementation Plans provide for attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard by the applicable attainment date.

Based on EPA’s review of the technical information provided in the
Maryland SIP, EPA concludes that the SIP demonstrates attainment of the
ozone standard by the June 2011 attainment date and EPA should approve
the attainment demonstration portion of the SIP.

 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA
-454/B-07-002, April 2007

 The guidance also states that additional analyses are recommended to
determine if attainment will be likely, even if the modeled attainment
test is “passed”.  The guidance recommends supplementary analyses in
all cases, and specifically recommends a WOE analysis if modeled ozone
is greater than or equal to 82 ppb.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21675-21677]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57666; File No. SR-FICC-2007-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Restructure the Rules of
the Government Securities Division and the Mortgage-Backed Securities
Division Relating to Fines and To Harmonize Them With Similar Rules of
Its Affiliates and To Restructure the Watch List

April 15, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 30, 2007, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on May 18, 2007, December 10,
2007, and January 31, 2008, amended the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
by FICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC is seeking to (i) restructure the Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') and the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division
(``MBSD'') rules related to fines, clearing fund consequences imposed
on members for rule violations, and certain aspects of the watch list
and (ii) harmonize its rules with similar rules of FICC's clearing
agency affiliates, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') and the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''). DTC and NSCC have
filed similar proposed rule changes.\2\ FICC's proposed revisions to
its fine schedule are set forth in Exhibit 5 to its proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57665 (April 15, 2008)
[SR-DTC-2007-05]. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57667 (April
15, 2008) [SR-NSCC-2007-07].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of
these statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Fines
(a) Fines Scheduled for Failure To Submit Financial and Other
Information
    Members of the GSD and MBSD are assessed fines for failure to
submit required financial, regulatory, and other information within the
time frames set forth in FICC's rules. Often a member that is fined is
a common member of FICC and DTC, FICC and NSCC, or FICC, DTC, and NSCC
(collectively, the ``Clearing Agencies''), which would cause the member
to incur multiple penalties for the same offense.\4\ FICC is proposing
that when a common member of the Clearing Agencies is late in providing
the same information to more than one Clearing Agency, the fine amount
will be divided equally among the Clearing Agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DTC does not currently maintain a fine in this regard.
However, DTC has filed aproposal to adopt a fine schedule similar to
the one used by FICC. Supra note 2.
    \5\ For example, if a firm is a member of FICC and NSCC, did not
submit its annual audited financial statements within the required
time frame, and this was the firm's first failure to meet the
deadline, the $200 fine will be split equally between FICC and NSCC.
    Where the member is a participant of DTC and also a member of
one or more of the other Clearing Agencies, the fine would be
collected by DTC and allocated equally among the other Clearing
Agencies, as appropriate. If the member is not a DTC participant,
but is a common member of NSCC and FICC, NSCC will collect the fine
and allocate the appropriate portion to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC proposes changes to the notes to this section of
the fine schedule to make clear that (i) the method by which the
reporting requirements will be published and (ii) the determination of
the fine amount after the fourth or more occasion of an offense within
a twelve-month rolling period will be made by FICC management with the
concurrence of the Board or the Credit and Market Risk Management
Committee.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under the rules of GSD and MBSD, the terms ``Board'' or
``Board of Directors'' mean the Board of Directors of FICC or a
committee thereof acting under delegated authority (``Board''). In
this situation, the Board would have to concur with the fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) General Continuance Standards
    Both GSD and MBSD currently impose a fine of $1,000 on a member
that fails to notify FICC within two business days of the member's
learning of its non-compliance with the general continuance standards
for membership or of its becoming subject to a statutory
disqualification. Both GSD and MBSD currently impose a $5,000 fine if a
member fails to notify FICC of a ``material change'' to its business. A
material change currently includes events such as a merger or
acquisition involving the member, a change in corporate form, a name
change, a material change in ownership, control, or management, and
participation as a defendant in litigation which could reasonably be
anticipated to have a direct negative impact on the member's financial
condition or ability to conduct its business.
    With respect to both GSD and MBSD, FICC is proposing to amend its
rules to reflect that when a common member of the Clearing Agencies is
late in providing the same information to more than one Clearing
Agency, the fine amount will be divided equally among the Clearing
Agencies.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DTC does not currently maintain a fine in this regard.
However, DTC has filed a proposal to adopt a fine schedule similar
to the one NSCC is proposing to adopt. Supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Fine Schedule for Late Clearing/Participants Fund Deficiency
Payments
    GSD and MBSD Netting and Clearing members are also subject to fines
for late payments of clearing fund and participants fund deficiency
calls. In order to harmonize its fine schedule with NSCC's, FICC is
proposing to adopt the fine amounts utilized by NSCC for this purpose
and to adopt other provisions set forth in the notes to NSCC's fine
schedule. As proposed, the first occasion lateness would generate a
warning letter to the firm for all deficiency amounts.\8\ If the number
of occasions of late Clearing Fund deficiency call payments within a
three-month rolling period exceeds four, FICC will obtain the Board's
concurrence for the fine amount. Furthermore, a late payment of more
than one hour will result in a fine equal to the amount applicable to
the next highest occasion for the specific deficiency amount.\9\ If a
member is late for more than one hour and it is the member's fourth
occasion in the rolling period, FICC will obtain the Board's
concurrence for the fine amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Where the member is a participant of DTC and also a member
of one or more of the other Clearing Agencies, the fine would be
collected by DTC and allocated equally among the other Clearing
Agencies, as appropriate. If the member is not a DTC participant,
but is a common member of NSCC and FICC, NSCC will collect the fine
and allocate the appropriate portion to FICC.
    GSD and MBSD currently impose a fine for a first occasion
lateness for its highest deficiency amount.
    \9\ For example, if a firm's deficiency amount is under
$1,000,000, it is the firm's second occurrence of late satisfaction
of a deficiency call in the rolling three-month period, and the firm
is late by more than one hour, the firm would be fined $200 (i.e.,
the fine for a third occasion) instead of $100 (i.e., the fine for a
second occasion) pursuant to the proposed fine schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Fine Schedule for Late Settlement Payments
    The GSD and MBSD currently fine members for late payment of
settlement obligations. FICC is proposing the following to harmonize
its fine schedule with those of NSCC. The GSD and MBSD would adopt the
deficiency and fine amounts of the NSCC fine schedules. As a result,
the first occasion would result in a fine rather than a warning letter
as under FICC's current fine schedule. Also, FICC would use a rolling
three-month period to determine the number of occasions rather than the
current 30 days' rolling period. In addition, the fine schedules of GSD
and MBSD would be amended to provide that (i) if the number of
occasions within the rolling three-month period exceeds four,
management would obtain the Board's concurrence of the fine amount and
(ii) a payment late by more than one hour would result in a fine equal
to the amount applicable for the next highest occasion for the specific
deficiency amount. If a member is late for more than one hour and it is
the member's fourth occasion in the rolling period, management would
obtain the Board's concurrence of the fine amount.
2. Placement on the Watch List and Prohibition Against Return of Excess
Clearing Fund as Consequences for Rules Violations
    The rules of both GSD and MBSD contain provisions requiring a
member to be placed on the watch list and, in certain instances,
prohibiting the return of excess clearing fund collateral as
consequences for certain rules violations or certain member actions.
For example, the FICC rules require that a member be placed on the
watch list and prohibited from receiving the return of excess clearing
fund collateral for failure to timely submit a required financial
report or other information to FICC. FICC is proposing the deletion of
all these provisions because the placement of a member on the watch
list and the prohibiting of the return of a member's excess of clearing
fund

collateral should result from management's monitoring of the member and
should not automatically occur because of rules violations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FICC currently has and would retain the right to deny the
return of excess clearing fund collateral in instances where it is
concerned about a particular member's financial or operational
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consequences for Being on the Watch List
    Currently, the GSD rules contain a very specific amount by which
the clearing fund requirement of a netting member that is placed on the
watch list may be increased.\11\ The MBSD and NSCC rules contain
provisions that are more general in this regard.\12\ FICC believes the
GSD rules are unnecessarily specific in this regard and should be
amended to more closely reflect the MBSD and NSCC rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The GSD rules currently state that GSD ``may require a
Netting Member that has been placed on the Watch List, to make and
maintain a deposit to the Clearing Fund over and above the amount
determined in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 4 (which additional
deposit shall constitute a portion of the Netting Member's Required
Fund Deposit) of up to 200 percent of its highest single Business
Day's Required Fund Deposit during the most recent 20 Business Days,
or such higher amount as the Board may deem necessary * * *.''
    \12\ For example, MBSD rules state that MBSD ``may require a
Participant that has been placed on the Watch List to make and
maintain a deposit to the Participants Fund over and above the
amount determined * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \13\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it should assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in FICC's custody or control or
for which it is responsible by assisting FICC and its members in
interpreting and understanding the rules with regard to fines, clearing
fund consequences for rule violations, and certain aspects of the watch
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments have not been solicited with respect to the
proposed rule change, and none have been received. FICC will notify the
Commission of any written comments it receives.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-FICC-2007-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2007-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 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 FICC and on FICC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2007/
ficc/2007-05.pdf, http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/
2007/ficc/2007-05-amendment.pdf, http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/
rule_filings/2007/ficc/2007-05-amendment-2.pdf, and http://
www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2007/ficc/2007-05-
amendment3.pdf. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FICC-2007-05 and should be submitted on or before May 13, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-8599 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31673-31674]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certificated
Training Centers--Simulator Rule

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on March 10, 2011, vol. 76, no. 47, page 13267. To determine
regulatory compliance, there

is a need for airmen to maintain records of certain training and
recency of experience; a training center has to maintain records of
student's training, employee qualification and training, and training
program approvals.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0570.
    Title: Certificated Training Centers--Simulator Rule.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 142.73 requires that training centers
maintain records for a period of one year to show trainee
qualifications for training, testing, or checking, training attempts,
training checking, and testing results, and for one year following
termination of employment the qualification of instructors and
evaluators providing those services. The information is maintained by
the certificate holder and subject to review by aviation safety
inspectors (operations), designated to provide surveillance to training
centers to ensure compliance with airman training, testing, and
certification requirements specified in other parts of the 14 CFR.
    Respondents: Approximately 113 training centers and associated
satellite facilities.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1,177.6 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 126,092 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-13568 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P