Dr. Les Grant, RTP Division Director National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development Briefing for Congressional Staff January 16, 2004 Revised Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards:

Congressional Requirements and EPA Review Process ° National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS)

  Required by Clean Air Act to protect against health and welfare effects of widespread major air pollutants   NAAQS and scientific bases (" criteria") must be reviewed/ revised,

as appropriate, every 5 years.

° NAAQS Review Process   Air Quality Criteria Documents are prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment in EPA's Office of Research and Development.

  Staff Papers are prepared by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Current PM NAAQS Review:

PM Criteria Document Revision ° Status of PM Air Quality Criteria Document ( PM AQCD)

Revision   1997 decisions to retain PM 10 and set new PM 2.5 NAAQS based on 1996 PM AQCD findings.

  New scientific research from EPA, private sector, academia, and other federal agencies is incorporated into revised ACQD   New information reduces uncertainty; improving scientific foundation of NAAQS   Four PM AQCD External Review Drafts ( Oct 1999; March 2001; April 2002; June 2003) have undergone public comment and CASAC review. Major revisions still needed for Chapters 7 9.

  Final PM AQCD to be completed by April 30, 2004, under terms of Consent Decree Agreement. Key Findings/ Conclusions of Revised Draft PM Criteria Document: New Epidemiology Evidence ° Short Term PM Exposure Effects   Many new PM time series analyses studies show positive, often statistically significant associations between 24 hr ambient PM levels and increased risk of mortality and/ or morbidity ( indexed by hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms, etc.).

  Reanalyses to address GAM related statistical issues generally confirmed original results; reduced PM effect sizes for some.

  Inclusion of gaseous co pollutants ( e. g., O 3, CO, NO 2, SO 2) in multipollutant models generally did not markedly change PM effect seen in single pollutant models.

  Overall, new short term PM epidemiology studies appear to substantiate likely associations of human health outcomes ( mortality,

morbidity) with ambient PM acting alone and/ or in combination with other gaseous co pollutants. ° Long Term PM Exposure Effects   HEI sponsored reanalyses of Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society ( ACS) Studies of long term PM exposure effects on mortality confirm original findings.

  New ACS Study extension ( doubling follow up time from 8 to 16 years)

confirms original findings of increased PM 2.5 related total and causespecific cardiovascular mortality and adds strongest epi evidence yet for increased lung cancer association with fine ( PM 2.5) but not coarse ( PM 15 2.5) fraction particles.

  New " intervention" studies indicate decreased risks of mortality associated with reductions in airborne PM or SO 2 after implementation of air pollution controls.

Key Findings/ Conclusions of Revised Draft PM Criteria Document: New Epidemiology Evidence Key Findings/ Conclusions of Revised Draft PM Criteria Document:

New Dosimetry/ Toxicology Evidence ° Toxicological Evidence of Health Effects Related to Ambient PM   Utah Valley PM collected before, during, and after steel mill closure provided natural experiment; coherence seen between epidemiologic results and PM effects shown experimentally in vitro, in animals, and in human clinical studies.

  Exposure of humans and animals to concentrated ambient particles ( CAPs) result in physiological changes and dose related impacts on respiratory and cardiovascular functions.

  In vivo and in vitro studies provide evidence for health effects associated with PM constituents/ sources ( e. g., metals, sulfates, coal/ oil combustion).

  Newly available findings on biologic mechanisms suggest PM related cardiovascular effects mediated via direct, neurogenic, and systemic mechanisms. Attachments to January 16, 2004 Briefing for Congressional Staff ° Figure 8 15 ( from June 2003 Fourth External Review Draft of PM Criteria Document), showing results of reanalyses addressing GAM related statistical issues for a number of key PM time series studies.

° Figures 8 18 to 8 21 ( from June 2003 Fourth Draft PM Criteria Document), comparing results of single pollutant models ( PM alone) versus multi pollutant models ( PM plus O 3; PM plus CO;

etc.). Figure 8 15. PM 10 excess risk estimates for total non accidental mortality for numerous locations ( and for cardiovascular mortality[*] for Coachella Valley, CA and Phoenix, AZ), using: ( 1) GAM with default convergence criteria ( white circle); ( 2) GAM with stringent convergence criteria ( black circle); and, ( 3) GLM/ natural splines ( x) that approximate the original GAM model from the GAM reanalysis studies. The numbers in parenthesis indicate lag days used (" 01" is average of 0 and 1 day lags). Figure 8 18. Excess risk estimates for total non accidental mortality in single pollutant ( PM only) and multi pollutant models. PM increments: 50

g/ m3 for PM 10 and 25

g/ m3 for PM 2.5 and PM 10 2.5. Results presented from time series studies that did not use GAM or were reanalyzed using GLM.

* Estimates from multi pollutant models in Ito ( 2003) obtained from the author via personal communication ( November 25, 2003). Figure 8 19. Excess risk estimates for cardiovascular related effects, including mortality, hospital admissions, and changes in biomarkers ( e. g., increases in blood parameters or decreases in heart rate variability measures) in single pollutant ( PM only) and multi pollutant models . PM increments: 50

g/ m3 for PM 10 and 25

g/ m3 for PM 2.5 and PM 10 2.5. Results presented from time series studies that did not use GAM or were reanalyzed using GLM. IH = ischemic heart disease; HF = heart failure; HR = heart rate; HRV = heart rate variability.

* Estimates from multi pollutant models in Ito ( 2003) obtained from the author via personal communication ( November 25, 2003). Figure 8 20. Excess risk estimates for respiratory related effects, including mortality, hospital admissions and medical visits in single pollutant ( PM only) and multi pollutant models. PM increments: 50

g/ m3 for PM 10 and 25

g/ m3 for PM 2.5 and PM 10 2.5. Results presented from time series studies that did not use GAM or were reanalyzed using GLM. Mort = mortality; Pneu = pneumonia; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

* Estimates from multi pollutant models in Ito ( 2003) obtained from the author via personal communication ( November 25, 2003). Figure 8 21. Excess risk estimates for increases in respiratory symptoms or decreases in lung function measures in singlepollutant ( PM only) and multi pollutant models. PM increments: 50

g/ m3 for PM 10 and 25

g/ m3 for PM 2.5 and PM 10 2.5. Results presented from time series studies that did not use GAM or were reanalyzed using GLM.


design value is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix N) at each eligible monitoring site within the area. Data
completeness requirements for a given year are met when at least 75
percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid
data.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Monitoring Network Considerations

    Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. The monitoring requirements are specified
in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are applicable to state, and
where delegated, local air monitoring agencies that operate criteria
pollutant monitors. The regulations in 40 CFR part 58 establish
specific requirements for operating air quality surveillance networks
to measure ambient concentrations of PM2.5, including
requirements for measurement methods, network design, quality assurance
procedures, and in the case of large urban areas, the minimum number of
monitoring sites designated as SLAMS.
    In section 4.7 of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for PM2.5 to operate at
SLAMS. SLAMS produce data comparable to the NAAQS, and therefore, the
monitor must be an approved federal reference method (FRM), federal
equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional method (ARM). The minimum
number of SLAMS required is described in section 4.7.1 and can be met
by either filter-based or continuous FRMs or FEMs. The monitoring
regulations also provide that each core-based statistical area (CBSA)
must operate a minimum number of PM2.5 continuous monitors;
\275\ however, this requirement can be met by either an FEM or a non-
FEM continuous monitor, and the continuous monitors can be located with
other SLAMS or at a different location. Consequently, the monitoring
requirements for PM2.5 can be met with filter-based FRMs/
FEMs, continuous FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a combination of
monitors at each required SLAMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.7.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans to the EPA.\276\ Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and
the District are the agencies responsible for assuring that the area
meets air quality monitoring requirements. CARB and SJVUAPCD submit
monitoring network plans to the EPA annually. These plans describe and
discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40
CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With
respect to PM2.5, we have found that the CARB and SJVUAPCD
annual network plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part
58.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1).
    \277\ Letter dated November 5, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Sheraz Gill,
Deputy Air Pollution Control Office, SJVUAPCD; letter dated November
6, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
EPA Region IX, to Jon Klassen, Director of Strategies and
Incentives, SJVUAPCD; letter dated October 26, 2020, from Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to
Jon Klassen, Director of Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD; letter
dated November 26, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer
Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, CARB; letter dated
November 26, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer
Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, CARB; and letter dated
November 5, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products
and Air Quality Assessment Branch, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 2018-2020 period, PM2.5 ambient concentration
data that are eligible for use in determining whether an area has
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS were collected at a total of 18
sites within the San Joaquin Valley: 5 sites in Fresno County; 3 sites
in Kern County; 2 sites each in Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, and
Stanislaus counties; and 1 site each in Madera and Tulare counties. The
District operates 12 of these sites while CARB operates 6 of these
sites. All of the sites are designated SLAMS for PM2.5.\278\
The primary monitors are FRMs at 5 of the 18 sites and beta attenuation
monitor FEMs at 13 of the 18 sites. Overall, the District's
PM2.5 monitoring network meets, and in several Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) exceeds, the PM2.5 minimum
monitoring requirements for the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ There are a number of other PM2.5 monitoring
sites within the valley, including other sites operated by the
District, the National Park Service, and certain Indian tribes, but
the data collected from these sites are non-regulatory and not
eligible for use in determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the PM2.5 monitoring network as
summarized above, we find that the monitoring network in the San
Joaquin Valley is adequate for the purpose of collecting ambient
PM2.5 concentration data for use in determining whether the
San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
the December 31, 2020 attainment date.

C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination

    Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, that data collected at all SLAMS and at all FRM, FEM, and ARM
SPM stations meet the EPA's quality assurance requirements. In doing
so, monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of ambient
concentration and quality assurance data are submitted to AQS and that
the ambient concentration data are accurate. CARB annually certifies
that the data the agency submits to AQS are quality assured, including
the data collected at monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley.\279\
SJVUAPCD does the same for data submitted to AQS from monitoring sites
operated by the District.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ For example, see letter dated June 21, 2021, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9, with
enclosures, certifying calendar year 2020 ambient air quality data
and quality assurance data.
    \280\ For example, see letter dated June 22, 2021, from Jessica
Olsen, Program Manager, SJVUAPCD, to Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air
and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, with attachments, certifying
calendar year 2020 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) require the
EPA to determine whether a PM2.5 nonattainment area attained
the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date. The
SJV PM2.5 Plan includes a modeled demonstration of
attainment by December 31, 2020, for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Thus, the EPA's evaluation of whether the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data
recorded during the three years preceding the attainment date (2018-
2020). Our review also takes into account the adequacy of the
PM2.5 monitoring network in the nonattainment area and the
reliability of the data collected by the network as discussed in the
previous sections of this document.
    With respect to data completeness, we determined that the data
collected by CARB and the District meet the quarterly completeness
criterion for all 12 quarters of the three-year period at most of the
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. More
specifically, among the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites from which
regulatory data are available, the data from 5 of the sites did not
meet the 75 percent completeness criterion (for each quarter); however,
the data from all but 3 sites (Fresno-

Foundry (AQS ID: 06-019-2016), Manteca (AQS ID: 06-077-2010), and
Clovis-Villa (AQS ID: 06-019-5001)) are sufficient nonetheless to
produce a valid design value for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS pursuant to the rules governing design value validity in 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2. We note that monitors with incomplete
data in one or more quarters may still produce valid design values if
the conditions for applying the EPA's data substitution test are
met.\281\ The Bakersfield-Airport (Planz) (AQS ID: 06-029-0016) and
Hanford-Irwin (AQS ID: 06-031-1004) monitoring sites had incomplete
data in the 4th quarter and 3rd quarter of 2018, respectively; however,
both sites had between 50 and 75 percent data completeness for these
quarters and have valid design values after applying the maximum
quarterly value data substitution test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Manteca monitoring site recorded data amounting to less than 75
percent completeness during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters of 2019 (61
percent, 66 percent, and 67 percent, respectively) due to ongoing
instrument operational issues. Under Appendix N, section 4.2(b) data
shall be considered valid, in spite of quarters with incomplete data,
if the resulting annual 98th percentile value or resulting 24-hour
NAAQS design value exceeds the standard. Here, the incomplete annual
98th percentile value, 26.8 [micro]g/m\3\, is well below the standard,
and the resulting design value for the site, 59 [micro]g/m\3\, is also
below the standard. Therefore, this provision of section 4.2(b) does
not validate the 2019 Manteca monitoring site data. Like Bakersfield-
Airport (Planz) and Hanford-Irwin, the data for the Manteca site
qualify for the maximum quarterly value data substitution test under 40
CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(c). However, upon applying the
data substitution test to the Manteca monitoring site data, we find
that the data do not pass the test (i.e., after substituting the
highest reported daily maximum PM2.5 value for a quarter for
all missing daily data in the matching deficient quarter, the resulting
test design value was above the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).
Because the data substitution test results in a test design value above
the NAAQS, the Manteca monitoring site 2019 design value is considered
invalid. The EPA then reviewed additional information about the
monitoring network and air quality data, including historical 24-hour
PM2.5 design value trends, to assess if the data collection
deficiency, in the context of data that otherwise show attainment,
precludes the EPA from determining that the San Joaquin Valley area
attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 2018-2020
period.
    First, although the 2019 data were incomplete, the available data
that were collected over a substantial amount of the year show zero
exceedances of the NAAQS.
    Second, the Manteca monitoring site has not historically been the
24-hour PM2.5 design value site for the San Joaquin Valley
area. For example, the Bakersfield-California (AQS ID: 06-029-0014)
monitoring site was the design value site for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for 2011 to 2013, the Bakersfield-Airport
(Planz) monitoring site was the design value site in 2014, the
Corcoran-Patterson (AQS ID: 06-031-0004) monitoring site was the design
value site from 2015 to 2019, and the Modesto-14th Street (AQS ID: 06-
099-0005) monitoring site was the design value site in 2020.
    Third, an assessment of long-term trends at the Manteca monitoring
site and nearby monitoring sites shows nearby sites have design values
below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the Manteca site typically
has lower design values compared to nearby sites. For example, during
the 2013 to 2020 period, the Manteca monitoring site had consistently
lower design values for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS than the
Stockton-Hazelton (AQS ID: 06-077-1002) and Modesto-14th Street
monitoring sites, which are located approximately 11 miles and 18
miles, respectively, from the Manteca monitoring site. The Stockton-
Hazelton and Modesto-14th Street monitoring sites have complete annual
24-hour design values that are below the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (after excluding monitored exceedances associated with the August
20-24, 2020 wildfire exceptional event, as discussed below) and provide
an appropriate comparison and characterization of air quality for the
areas surrounding the Manteca monitoring site. Thus, because the data
that were collected provide a 98th percentile value below the standard,
and the Manteca monitoring site has historically lower design value
concentrations relative to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
design values at nearby locations, we find that the incomplete data
should not preclude the EPA from determining that the San Joaquin
Valley area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The remaining two sites, Fresno-Foundry and Clovis-Villa, recorded
data amounting to less than 50 percent completeness during multiple
quarters during the 2018-2020 period. Specifically, the Fresno-Foundry
monitoring site recorded less than 50 percent data capture during all
four quarters of 2018 and 2019 and the Clovis-Villa monitoring site
recorded less than 50 percent data capture during the 2nd and 4th
quarters of 2019. Thus, the data in these quarters are not eligible for
the maximum quarterly value data substitution test under the provisions
in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, section 4.2(c)(i), which state that if
any quarter has less than 50 percent data capture, then the required
test conditions are not met and the substitution test cannot be used.
Additionally, the data collected at these sites did not result in an
98th percentile value or resulting 24-hour NAAQS design value that
exceeds the standard under the provision of Appendix N section 4.2(b).
Therefore, the design values at these two sites are considered invalid.
However, the EPA reviewed historical 24-hour PM2.5 design
value trends and the causes of the incomplete data in the context of
data that otherwise show attainment, and found that the data collection
deficiency should not preclude a determination that the San Joaquin
Valley area attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the
2018-2020 period.
    The Fresno-Foundry monitoring site began operation on January 1,
2020. Although data completeness was 98 percent for year 2020, the data
completeness requirements for the 2018-2020 period are not met since
the site was not yet operational and thus data were not collected in
2018 and 2019. Because the incomplete data at the Fresno-Foundry
monitoring site is due to the site having only begun operation in 2020,
the incomplete data should not preclude the EPA from determining
whether the area has attained the NAAQS. Upon excluding monitored
exceedances associated with the August 20-24, 2020 wildfire exceptional
event, as discussed below, the Fresno-Foundry monitoring site has an
incomplete 2020 design value of 64 [micro]g/m\3\, which is below the
level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The Clovis-Villa monitoring site recorded less than 75 percent data
capture during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2019 (48 percent, 66
percent, and 41 percent, respectively) due to ongoing instrument
operational issues. Because the data substitution test under 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(c) requires each quarter to have data
completeness of at least 50 percent, the Clovis-Villa 2019 data do not
qualify for the data substitution test. Like Manteca, the Clovis-Villa
site has not historically

been the 24-hour PM2.5 design value site. An assessment of
long-term trends at the Clovis-Villa monitoring site and a nearby
monitoring site shows that the Clovis-Villa site has historically had
design values below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and has had
lower design values compared to the nearby site. During the 2011 to
2019 period, the Clovis-Villa monitoring site consistently had lower
design values for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS than the Fresno-
Garland monitoring site, which is located approximately four miles from
Clovis-Villa.\282\ The Fresno-Garland site has a complete 2020 annual
24-hour design value below the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
provides an appropriate comparison and characterization of air quality
for the area surrounding the Clovis-Villa monitoring site. Furthermore,
the District exceeds the PM2.5 minimum monitoring
requirements for three PM2.5 SLAMs monitors in the Fresno
MSA as they are currently operating five SLAMs monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ The Clovis-Villa and Fresno-Garland monitoring sites have
the same 2020 design value of 62 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, based on the historical design value concentrations at the
Clovis-Villa monitoring site relative to the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and the nearest site, we find that the incomplete data at the
Clovis-Villa monitoring site should not preclude the EPA from
determining the San Joaquin Valley area has attained the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Table 5 shows the 24-hour PM2.5 design values at each of
the 18 SLAMS monitoring sites within the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area for the most recent three-year period (2018-2020).
The data indicate that the San Joaquin Valley area likely experienced
higher than normal PM2.5 concentrations in 2018 and 2020 due
to wildfire impacts during the summer and fall months.\283\ Table 5
shows that 98th percentile concentrations at all 18 monitors in the San
Joaquin Valley area with data spanning 2018 to 2020 are significantly
higher in 2018 and 2020 relative to concentrations in 2019, again,
likely due to the wildfires in those years. Accordingly, the 2018-2020
design values in Table 5 may also be higher than normal at certain
monitoring sites due to potential wildfire impacts within the 2018-2020
data period. Nevertheless, the data show that the 24-hour design value
for the 2018-2020 period was equal to or less than 65 [micro]g/m\3\
(i.e., the level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) at all
monitors after excluding monitored exceedances specifically associated
with the August 20-24, 2020 wildfire exceptional event, as discussed
below. Therefore, we are proposing to determine, based on complete (or
otherwise not inconsistent, as described above), quality-assured, and
certified data for 2018-2020, that the San Joaquin Valley area has
attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with
attainment of the standard projected by the State in the SJV
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ EPA, 2020 Raw Data Report, AMP350, accessed July 13, 2021.

                              Table 5--2018-2020 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                98th percentile ([micro]g/m\3\)                      2018-2020  24-hour
         County             General location      AQS ID    ----------------------------------------------------------------------     design  values
                                  site                                2018                    2019                   2020             ([micro]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..................  Fresno--Pacific....   06-019-5025  65.5..................  37.1.................  81.0.................  61.
                          Fresno--Garland....   06-019-0011  63.5..................  36.9.................  85.0.................  62.
                          Fresno--Foundry....   06-019-2016  Inc...................  Inc..................  63.9.................  64 (Inv).\a\
                          Clovis--Villa......   06-019-5001  57.0..................  28.0 (Inc)...........  99.5.................  62 (Inv).\b\
                          Tranquillity.......   06-019-2009  51.4..................  17.1.................  92.5.................  54.
Kern....................  Bakersfield--Airpor   06-029-0016  60.8..................  46.7.................  57.1.................  55.
                           t (Planz).
                          Bakersfield--Califo   06-029-0014  69.2..................  43.4.................  79.2.................  64.
                           rnia Ave.
                          Bakersfield--Golden   06-029-0010  60.9..................  44.3.................  76.9.................  61.
                           State Highway.
Kings...................  Corcoran--Patterson   06-031-0004  78.0..................  45.1.................  69.0.................  64.
                          Hanford--Irwin.....   06-031-1004  78.2..................  41.1.................  72.6.................  64.
Madera..................  Madera--Avenue 14..   06-039-2010  50.2..................  23.9.................  87.7.................  54.
Merced..................  Merced--M Street...   06-047-2510  52.7..................  29.5.................  77.1.................  53.
                          Merced--Coffee.....   06-047-0003  56.0..................  23.4.................  78.3.................  53.
San Joaquin.............  Stockton--Hazelton.   06-077-1002  92.3..................  32.9.................  65.9.................  64.
                          Manteca............   06-077-2010  84.6 \c\..............  26.8 (Inc)...........  66.9.................  59 (Inv).\d\
Stanislaus..............  Modesto--14th         06-099-0005  100.4.................  28.4.................  67.1.................  65.
                           Street.
                          Turlock............   06-099-0006  88.6..................  36.0.................  67.7.................  64.
Tulare..................  Visalia............   06-107-2002  63.4..................  45.5.................  83.4.................  64.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, 2020 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480, accessed September 1, 2021.The Design Value Report excludes measurements with regionally concurred
  exceptional event flags. AQS reports for 24-hour PM2.5 data are only available for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as a Pollutant Standard, thus this
  report only reflects the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and does not include the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as a Pollutant Standard. Subsequently, AQS only
  allows the EPA to place concurrence flags on data associated with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N specifies the data handling
  and design value calculations for both the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The design values in the Design Value Report for
  the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area are the same as would be expected for the 1997 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS if the
  exceptional events for that NAAQS were correctly represented in AQS.
Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. Inv = Invalid design value due to incomplete data.
\a\ The 2018-2020 design value at Fresno-Foundry (AQS ID: 06-019-2016) is based on concentration data from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The
  site began operation in 2020; therefore, data from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 are not available. Based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
  section 4.2(b), three years of valid annual PM2.5 98th percentile mass concentrations are required to produce a valid 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design
  value. Thus, the Fresno-Foundry 2018-2020 design value is considered invalid.
\b\ Based on the design value calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b), the Clovis-Villa (AQS ID: 06-019-5001)
  2018-2020 design value is considered invalid due to incomplete data in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2019.

\c\ Identification of the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration is based on the number of creditable samples in a given year. See 40 CFR part 50,
  appendix N, section 4.5. Specifically, in any year for which there are at least 351 creditable samples, the 98th percentile is the 8th highest
  concentration, and as the number of creditable samples decreases the 98th percentile concentration is represented by a data point closer to the
  maximum concentration. The number of creditable samples in 2018 for Manteca is reflected inaccurately in AQS and results in an inaccurate 2018 98th
  percentile concentration and 2018-2020 design value. Table 5 reflects the 2018 98th percentile concentration and 2018-2020 design value based on the
  corrected number of creditable samples. See memorandum dated August 6, 2021, from Dena Vallano, EPA Region IX, to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0261,
  Subject: ``San Joaquin Valley, CA 1997 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, Manteca Monitoring.''
\d\ Based on the design calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b), the Manteca (AQS ID: 06-077-2010) 2018-2020
  design value is considered invalid due to incomplete data in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters of 2019.

    In the EPA's review of monitoring data for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area,
the EPA is excluding certain exceedances of the standard from the
attainment determination presented herein because they were the result
of exceptional events. Under the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule
(EER),\284\ exceedances flagged as exceptional events will only be
considered for EPA concurrence if the data affect one of the types of
regulatory actions specified by the EER. The State has submitted a
demonstration for a wildfire PM2.5 exceptional event
covering a total of 30 measured exceedances occurring over 5
consecutive days (August 20-24, 2020) at 8 monitoring sites within the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area that were critical for informing
this attainment determination.\285\ The State's submission notes that
additional San Joaquin Valley monitoring sites were affected by
wildfire smoke during the 2018-2020 period, but that those dates were
not included in the submission because they did not cause the 2020
design values to violate the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
did not have regulatory significance relevant to this
determination.\286\ The EPA reviewed the documentation that the State
provided to demonstrate that these exceedances meet the criteria for
exceptional events under the EER. The EPA concurred with the State's
determinations that, based on the weight of evidence, the exceedances
were caused by an exceptional event.\287\ Accordingly, the EPA has
determined that the monitored exceedances associated with this
exceptional event should not be used for regulatory purposes, including
the evaluation of whether the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has
attained by the attainment date and evaluation of the CAA Serious area
and section 189(d) plan submission. Excluding these exceedances caused
by uncontrollable emissions, the EPA proposes to determine that the San
Joaquin Valley has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
consistent with attainment of the standard projected by the State in
the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ 40 CFR 50.1(j), (k), (l); 50.14(a)(1)(i); 51.930.
    \285\ The eight monitoring sites covered by the August 20-24,
2020 wildfire exceptional event demonstration include Fresno-
Foundry, Bakersfield-Airport (Planz), Corcoran-Patterson, Hanford-
Irwin, Stockton-Hazelton, Manteca, Modesto-14th Street, and Turlock.
    \286\ SJVUAPCD, ``Exceptional Event Demonstration for August
2020 PM2.5 Exceedances due to Wildfires'', May 11, 2021,
3.
    \287\ Letter dated July 13, 2021, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Michael
Benjamin, Division Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division,
CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, based on complete (or otherwise not inconsistent), quality-
assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2018-2020 monitoring period. If finalized, this proposed determination
that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has attained the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would not constitute a redesignation of
the area to attainment. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), redesignations
of nonattainment areas to attainment require states to meet a number of
additional statutory criteria, including the EPA's approval of a SIP
revision demonstrating maintenance of the standard for 10 years after
redesignation. The designation status of the San Joaquin Valley area
will remain Serious nonattainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is also proposing to approve in part and disapprove
in part portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan submitted by
California that pertain to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area as follows:
    (1) We are proposing to approve the following elements as meeting
the Serious nonattainment area planning requirements:
    (a) The 2013 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(b);
    (b) the BACM/BACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a);
    (c) the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable as meeting
the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1011(b);
    (d) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and
    (e) the quantitative milestone demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013;
    (2) We are proposing to approve the following elements as meeting
the CAA section 189(d) planning requirements:
    (a) The 2013 base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(c);
    (b) the BACM/BACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 189(a)(1)(C) \288\ and 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ As discussed in section III.B of this document, a section
189(d) plan must address any outstanding Moderate or Serious area
requirements that have not previously been approved. Because we have
not previously approved a subpart 4 RACM demonstration for the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, we are also proposing to approve
the BACM/BACT demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan as
meeting the subpart 4 RACM/RACT requirement for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) the demonstration that the Plan will, at a minimum, achieve an
annual five percent reduction in emissions of NOX as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c);
    (d) the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable as meeting
the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1011(b);
    (e) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and
    (f) the quantitative milestone demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013;
    (3) We are proposing to approve the motor vehicle emission budgets
for 2017 and 2020 as shown in Table 8 of this proposed rule because
they are derived

from approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meet the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
    (4) We are proposing to approve the inter-pollutant trading
mechanism provided for use in transportation conformity analyses for
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR
93.124(b); and
    (5) We are proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element
of the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for both the Serious area and CAA section 189(d) planning
requirements for failing to meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9). However, based on our proposed finding of attainment by the
applicable attainment date, we are also proposing to determine that the
contingency measures requirement will no longer apply to the San
Joaquin Valley area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS if we
finalize the determination of attainment by the applicable attainment
date. Therefore, our proposed disapproval, if finalized, would not
trigger sanctions or FIP clocks, and we are proposing to issue a
protective finding for transportation conformity determinations under
40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) if the proposed disapproval is finalized.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposed rule. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because the proposed partial SIP approval and partial
disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but will simply disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed partial SIP approval and partial disapproval, if finalized,
will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but will simply
disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to partially approve and
partially disapprove pre-existing requirements under state or local law
and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result
from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove would not apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this proposed partial SIP approval and
partial disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any
new regulations but will simply disapprove certain state requirements
for inclusion in the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

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

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

    Dated: September 17, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-20613 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58298-58301]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-1009]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations
Meetings, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.164 by
establishing three security zones to replace the three regulated
navigation areas (RNAs) currently contained within this section. The
Coast Guard also proposes to disestablish these three RNAs. The three
proposed security zones, just like the RNAs they replace, are meant to
promote public safety and to protect dignitaries who visit the United
Nations in New York, NY.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 29, 2014.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before October 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York, Waterways
Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Myles Greenway, Coast Guard First
District Waterways Management Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
UN United Nations
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
USSS United States Secret Service

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-1009] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed

postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period and may change the rule based on
your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-1009) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before October 6, 2014, using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 30, 2013, we published a final rule entitled ``Regulated
Navigation Areas, Security Zones: Dignitary Arrival/Departure and
United Nations Meetings, New York, NY in the Federal Register (78 FR
53671). In so doing, the Coast Guard, among other things, established
within 33 CFR 165.164 three RNAs on the waters of the East River and
Bronx Kill, in the vicinity of Wall Street Heliport, Randalls and Wards
Islands, and the United Nations Building, New York.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define security zones.
    As mentioned above, the Coast Guard previously established three
RNAs on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill, near Wall Street
Heliport, Randalls and Wards Islands, and the United Nations Building.
The primary purpose of these three RNAs is to protect dignitaries, such
as the President of the United States, who visit the United Nations.
Although these RNAs serve their intended purpose, the Coast Guard
proposes to replace them with security zones to best communicate the
federal government's security posture in these particular water areas.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, the Coast
Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.164 by establishing three security
zones to replace the three RNAs that currently exist in that section.
Specifically, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a security zone at
33 CFR 165.164(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(6) in place of the RNAs currently
described in those same three subparagraphs. Because these proposed
security zones will replace the three RNAs, the Coast Guard also
proposes to disestablish the three RNAs. The size, location,
boundaries, and enforcement periods for these three proposed security
zones will be identical to the size, location, boundaries, and
enforcement periods for the existing RNAs.
    This proposed rule would make no substantive changes to the
security zones described at 33 CFR 165.164(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5)
(respectively, the ``Marine Air Terminal, La Guardia Airport Security
Zone,'' ``United Nations Security Zone,'' and ``United Nations West
Channel Closure Security Zone''). As a purely administrative matter,
this proposed rule would re-title the security zones located at 33 CFR
165.164(a)(4) and (a)(5) to ``United Nations Manhattan Shoreline'' and
``United Nations West Channel Closure,'' respectively.
    This proposed rule would revise 33 CFR 165.164 to contain six
security zones, each with the intended purpose of protecting
dignitaries visiting the United Nations. One of these security zones,
that located at 33 CFR 165.164(a)(4), would be subject to enforcement
at all times. All others would be subject to enforcement only
periodically, and the public would be notified of their enforcement in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the fact that the RNAs would simply be designated as security
zones as the more appropriate means to regulate the movement of vessels
or individuals in the areas. We are not proposing to make any changes
to the size, boundaries, or enforcement duration of these proposed
security zones.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This determination is based on the fact that the RNAs would simply
be designated as security zones as the more appropriate means to
regulate the movement of vessels or individuals in the areas. We are
not proposing to make any changes to the size, boundaries, or
enforcement duration of the proposed security zones.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves designating three RNAs as security zones. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.164 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.164  Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United
Nations Meetings, New York, NY.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) Wall Street Heliport. All waters of the East River within the
following boundaries: East of a line drawn between approximate position
40[deg]42'01'' N, 074[deg]00'39'' W (east of The Battery) to
40[deg]41'36'' N, 074[deg]00'52'' W (point north of Governors Island)
and north of a line drawn from the point north of Governors Island to
the southwest corner of Pier 7 North, Brooklyn; and south of a line
drawn between 40[deg]42'14.8'' N, 074[deg]00'20.3'' W (Wall Street,
Manhattan), and the northwest corner of Pier 2 North, Brooklyn (NAD
1983).
    (2) Randalls and Wards Islands Security Zone: All waters of the
East River between the Hell Gate Rail Road Bridge (mile 8.2), and a
line drawn from a point at approximate position 40[deg]47'27.12'' N,
073[deg]54'35.14'' W (Lawrence Point, Queens) to a point at approximate
position 40[deg]47'52.55'' N, 073[deg]54'35.25'' W (Port Morris
Stacks), and all waters of the Bronx Kill southeast of the Bronx Kill
Rail Road Bridge (mile 0.6) (NAD 1983).
    (3) Marine Air Terminal, La Guardia Airport Security Zone: All
waters of Bowery Bay, Queens, New York, south of a line drawn from the
western end of La Guardia Airport at approximate position
40[deg]46'47'' N, 073[deg]53'05'' W to

the Rikers Island Bridge at approximate position 40[deg]46'51'' N,
073[deg]53'21'' W and east of a line drawn between the point at the
Rikers Island Bridge to a point on the shore in Queens, New York, at
approximate position 40[deg]46'36'' N, 073[deg]53'31'' W (NAD 1983).
    (4) United Nations Manhattan Shoreline. All waters of the East
River bound by the following points: 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), then
east to 40[deg]44'34.5'' N, 073[deg]58'10.5'' W (about 180 yards
offshore of Manhattan), then northeasterly to 40[deg]45'29'' N,
073[deg]57'26.5'' W (about 125 yards offshore of Manhattan at the
Queensboro Bridge), then northwesterly to 40[deg]45'31'' N,
073[deg]57'30.5'' W (Manhattan shoreline at the Queensboro Bridge),
then southerly along the shoreline to the starting point at
40[deg]44'37'' N, 073[deg]58'16.5'' W (NAD 1983).
    (5) United Nations West Channel Closure. All waters of the East
River north of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), to
approximate position 40[deg]44'31.04'' N, 073[deg]58'03.10'' W
(approximately 400 yards east of the Manhattan shoreline), all waters
west of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'31.04'' N,
073[deg]58'03.10'' W (approximately 400 yards east of the Manhattan
shoreline), to the southern tip of Roosevelt Island at approximate
position 40[deg]44'57.96'' N, 073[deg]57'41.57'' W, then along the
western shoreline of Roosevelt Island to the Queensboro Bridge, and all
waters south of the Queensboro Bridge (NAD 1983).
    (6) United Nations Full River Closure. All waters of the East River
north of a line drawn from approximate position 40[deg]44'37'' N,
073[deg]58'16.5'' W (the base of East 35th Street, Manhattan), to
approximate position 40[deg]44'23'' N, 073[deg]57'44.5'' W (Hunters
Point, Long Island City), and south of the Queensboro Bridge (NAD
1983).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on
the COTP's behalf. The designated representative may be on a Coast
Guard vessel, or onboard a federal, state, or local agency vessel that
is authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
    Dignitary means the President or Vice President of the United
States, or visiting heads of foreign states or governments.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or move within a security
zone created by this section while that security zone is being enforced
unless granted permission to do so by the Coast Guard's First District
Commander, the COTP New York, or the designated representative. Vessel
operators and persons given permission to enter or operate in a
security zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
First District Commander, the COTP, or the designated representative.
Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard or other duly authorized law
enforcement vessel (e.g. New York City police) by siren, radio,
flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed
as directed and follow any instructions to anchor or moor up to a
waterfront facility.
    (d) Enforcement Periods. The security zone described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section is subject to enforcement at all times. All
other security zones established by this section will only be enforced
when necessary to protect dignitaries, as determined by the COTP New
York.
    (e) Notification. Because the security zone described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section is subject to enforcement at all times, the
Coast Guard will not necessarily take any action to further notify the
public about the enforcement of that zone. As for the enforcement
periods for the other security zones contained herein, the Coast Guard
will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public
of the time and duration of any enforcement period. The COTP New York
may also notify the public about enforcement of these security zones
via http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyorkinformation.
    (f) Contact Information. Vessel operators desiring to enter or
operate within a security zone established by this section shall
telephone the COTP New York at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the designated
representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.

    Dated: September 16, 2014.
V.B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-23171 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36416]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0384]

Annual Fireworks Displays and Other Events in the Eighth Coast
Guard District Requiring Safety Zones; Point Pleasant Sternwheel
Festival; Ohio River 265.2-266.2; Point Pleasant, WV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Point Pleasant Sternwheel
Festival safety zone from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on June 28th,
2014. This action is necessary for the safety of participants and
spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on navigable
waters during the Point Pleasant Sternwheel Festival. During the
enforcement period, entry into, transiting through or anchoring in the
safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the
sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, No. 25, will be
enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on June 28th, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, contact Petty Officer Third Class Patrick Hunsaker at
(304) 733-0198, or you may email him at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This year, the Coast Guard will enforce the
safety zone for the annual Point Pleasant Sternwheel Festival listed in
33 CFR 100.801 Table 1, No. 25, on June 28th, 2014 from 9:45 p.m. until
10:45 p.m. This establishes the currently published date of the last
weekend in June or first weekend in July as found in 33 CFR 165.801
Table 1, No. 25.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into, or remaining or
anchoring within the safety zone listed in Table 1, No. 25 is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass
through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In
addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information
Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or Patrol Commander
determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
R. V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2014-15121 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23867-23868]
[DOCID:fr01my07-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55664; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Increase the Class Quoting Limit in Ten Option Classes

April 24, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 14, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one
constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect
to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to increase the class quoting limit in ten option
classes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary,

and at the Commission's public reference room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 8.3A, Maximum Number of Market Participants Quoting
Electronically per Product, establishes class quoting limits (``CQLs'')
for each class traded on the Hybrid Trading System.\5\ A CQL is the
maximum number of quoters that may quote electronically in a given
product and the current levels are established from 25-40, depending on
the trading activity of the particular product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 8.3A.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(c) provides a procedure by which the
President of the Exchange may increase the CQL for a particular
product. In this regard, the President of the Exchange may increase the
CQL in exceptional circumstances, which are defined in the rule as
``substantial trading volume, whether actual or expected.''\6\ The
effect of an increase in the CQL is procompetitive in that it increases
the number of market participants that may quote electronically in a
product. The purpose of this filing is to increase the CQL in the
following option classes as described below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Any actions taken by the President of the Exchange
pursuant to this paragraph will be submitted to the SEC in a rule
filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act.'' Rule
8.3A.01(c).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Current
                   Option class                        CQL      New CQL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Apple Inc. (AAPL)................................         47         60
Dendreon Corporation (DNDN).......................         40         50
Crocs Inc. (CROX).................................         30         35
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS).....................         40         45
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE).............         40         45
Mastercard Incorporated Class A...................         35         40
Nymex Holding (NMX)...............................         30         40
NYSE Euronext (NYX)...............................         45         55
Research in Motion (RIMM).........................         42         60
Sunpower Corporation Class A (SPWR)...............         25         30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading volume in these option classes recently has increased
substantially. Increasing the CQL in these classes will enable the
Exchange to enhance the liquidity offered, thereby offering deeper and
more liquid markets.
2. Statutory Basis
    CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section
6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)\8\ requirements that
the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the
proposal.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change will take effect upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act\9\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\10\ because it constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-36 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-CBOE-2007-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-36 and should be submitted on or before May
22, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-8223 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P