[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33194-33196]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0471; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fairmont, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E surface airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Fairmont Municipal Airport, Fairmont, MN. The FAA is proposing this
action as the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Fairmont VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the
instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the
Fairmont Municipal Airport would also be updated to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at
this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-

0471; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-18, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fairmont Municipal
Airport, Fairmont, MN, to support IFR operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-0471;
Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the Class E surface airspace to within a 4.1-mile radius
(increased from a 4-mile radius) of the Fairmont Municipal Airport,
Fairmont, MN; removing the extensions to the airspace, as they are no
longer needed; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database; and updating the outdated
term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-
mile radius) of the Fairmont Municipal Airport; removing the
extensions, as they are no longer required; and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Fairmont VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL MN E2 Fairmont, MN [Amended]

Fairmont Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 43[deg]38'38'' N, long. 94[deg]24'56'' W)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of the Fairmont Municipal Airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Fairmont, MN [Amended]

Fairmont Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 43[deg]38'38'' N, long. 94[deg]24'56'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Fairmont Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 3, 2019.
John Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-14773 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for printing, coating and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles were proposed on July 11, 2002 (67 FR 46028), promulgated on May 29, 2003 (68 FR 32172), and amended on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47001).  These standards apply to each existing, new or reconstructed printing, coating, slashing, dyeing or finishing of fabric and other textiles.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.  A semiannual report of compliance is also required.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of one affected facility at each plant site and that each plant site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant site).

An average of 140 respondents will be subject to the regulation over the period covered by this ICR.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from printing, coating and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility(s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

	The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions,

identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.

	3(a)  Nonduplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

	For the information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available.  We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the AIRS Facility System (AFS), and websites covering flexible polyurethane foam fabrication.  We also consulted with the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, and the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), Mr. Mike Hubbard at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities   are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping

are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3(e)  General Guidelines

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent with the part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years.  EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are printing, coating and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standards, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source category descriptions.

Standard (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Cotton	2211	313210

Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Manmade Fiber and Silk	2221	313210

Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Wool (including dyeing and finishing)	2231 313210

Textile Goods, NEC (broadwoven fabrics of jute, linen, hemp, and ramie and hand woven fabrics)	2299	313210

Narrow Fabric and Other Smallware Mills; Cotton, Wool, silk and Manmade Fiber	2241	313221

Textile Goods, NEC (narrow woven fabric of jute, linen, hemp, and ramie) 2299	313221

Knitting Mills, NEC (knitting weft fabric and fabricating textile products, such as bedspreads, curtains, or towels	2259	313241

Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Wool (wool broadwoven fabric finishing without weaving fabric)	2231	313311

Finishers of Broadwoven Fabrics of Cotton	2261	313311

Finishers of Broadwoven Fabrics of Manmade Fiber and Silk	2262	313311

Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Wool (wool fabric, except broadwoven, finishing without weaving fabric)	2231	313312

Knit Outerwear Mills (dyeing and finishing knit outerwear without knitting outerwear)	2253	313312

Knit Underwear and Nightwear Mills (dyeing and finishing underwear and nightwear without knitting garments)	2254	313312

Weft Knit Fabric Mills (finishing weft fabric without knitting weft fabric)	2257	313312

Lace and Warp Fabric Mills (Finishing lace or warp fabric without knitting lace or warp fabric)	2258	313312

Finishers of Textiles, NEC (except linen fabric finishing)	2269	313312

Thread Mills (finishing thread without manufacturing thread)	2284	313312

Textile Goods, NEC (finishing hard fiber thread and yarn without manufacturing thread or yarn)	2299	313312

Coated Fabrics, Not Rubberized	2295	313320

Fabricated Rubber Products, NEC (rubberizing fabric or purchased textile products)	3069	313320

Carpets and Rugs	2273	314110

Rubber and Plastics Hose and Belting	3052	326220

Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices	3053	339991

Fabricated Rubber Products, NEC (rubberizing fabric or purchased textile products)	3069	313320

	4(b)  Information Requested

	These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations that OMB established under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

		(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Initial notification	63.9(b), 63.4310(b)

Notification of intent to construction/reconstruction	63.9(b)(4), 63.4310

Notification of anticipated startup	63.9(b)(4), 63.4310

Notification of actual startup	63.9(b)(4), 63.4310

Request for extension of compliance date	63.9(c), 63.4283

Notification of performance test	63.9(e), 63.6310

Notification of compliance status	63.9(h)(2), 63.4310

Continuous monitoring system 	63.9(h)

Performance test report	63.10(d)(2), 63.4311

Startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) report	63.6.(e)(3), 63.4311

Excess emissions or no excess emissions report	63.10(e)(3), 63.4311

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	63.6(e)(3), 63.4311

Records are required to be retained for five years	63.10(b)(2)

Electronic Reporting

	At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

	Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely

Used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 33 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

 Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions Reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

	5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the

emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for five years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.  The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 20,821 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These

hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of this regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46   ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71   ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55   ($20.26 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device

(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent

(C)

Number of New Respondents

(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)

(E)

Annual O&M Cost`s for One Respondent

(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M

(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Parametric monitoring (contractor)

$2,953

1

$2,953

$26

140

$3,640

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $2,953.  This is the total of column D in the above table.  These costs are shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(a), Total annualized capital/startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $3,640.  This is the total of column G.  These costs are shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(b), Total annual costs (O&M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $7,000.  This cost is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83-I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emission, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $44,574.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6)

		Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005 General

Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately 140 existing respondents will be subject to the standard.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will become subject.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below is 140 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

                                                        Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	138	0	0	139

2	1	139	0	0	140

3	1	140	0	0	141

Average	1	139	0	0	140

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 140.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(a), Number of respondents.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification	1	1	0	1

Application of construction/reconstruction	1	1	0	1

Notification of anticipated startup	1	1	0	1

Notification of actual startup	1	1	0	1

Notification of compliance status	1	1	0	1

Notification of performance test	1	1	0	1

Performance test report	1	1	0	1

Report of monitoring exceedances	6.6	2	0	13.2

Report of no excess emissions	59.4	2	0	118.8

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	6.6	2	0	13.2

Report of compliance deviation	7.4	2	0	14.8

Report of no compliance deviations	66.6	2	0	133.2

	Total	300

	The number of Total Annual Responses is 300.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden and Cost Tables

	The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the

Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

	The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).  The total annual labor costs are $1,680,831.  The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 69 hours per response.

	The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $7,000.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

	The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 1,099 labor hours at a cost of $44,574.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).

	6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to the requirements of the standard, which requires all existing sources to be in compliance within three years.  All existing sources are therefore, assumed to be incompliance and the burden associated with the initial compliance efforts no longer exists.

	There was a decrease in the capital/startup and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs from the previous ICR.  The reason for this decrease is we are only accounting for the number of respondents associated with the O&M costs, not the number of reports filed annually that was used in the previous ICR.

	6(g)  Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 69 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete

and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0023, which is available for online viewing at  www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance  Docket and  Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),  EPA West, Room

B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the  Reading  Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202)566-1752.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID number identified above.  You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket Number:  EPA-HQ OECA-2005-0023, and OMB Control Number 2060-0522 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting Requirements

   A.  Read instructions 	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$371.35

   B.  Required activities

       Initial oxidizer performance test c, e	280	1	280	1	280	14	28 $25,994.64

       Repeat oxidizer performance

       test c, e, f 	280	1	280	0.2	56	2.8	5.6	$5,179.44

       Initial capture performance test c, e	215	1	215	1	215	10.75	21.5 $19,960.16

       Repeat capture performance test c, e, f	215	1	215	0.2	43	2.15	4.3 $3,992.03

       Startup, shutdown, malfunction

       plan c	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$3,713.52

       Solvent recovery system compliance

       determination c, p	4	12	48	13.2	633.6	31.68	63.36	$58,822.16

       Emission rate limit compliance                 determination  	4 12	48	140	6,720	336	672	$623,871.36

       Coordination with suppliers g	40	1	40	140	5,600	280	560 $519,892.80

    C.  Create information	See 4B

	    D.  Gather existing information	See 4B

	    E.  Write report

        Initial notification c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

        Notification of construction/                     reconstruction c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

        Notification of anticipated startup c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

        Notification of actual startup c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

        Notification of compliance status c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$371.35

        Notification of performance test c, e	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

        Performance test report c, e	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$3,713.52

        Report of monitoring

        exceedances  c, h, k	16	2	32	6.6	211.2	10.56	21.12	$19,607.39

        Report of no excess emissions c, i,  k	8	2	16	59.4	950.4	47.52 95.04	$88,233.23

        Startup, shutdown, malfunction                 report c, j, k	8 2	16	6.6	105.6	5.28	10.56	$9,803.70

        Report of compliance

        deviation d, k, l	16	2	32	7.4 	236.8	11.84	23.68	$21,984.04

        Report of no compliance

        deviations d, k, m	8	2	16	66.6 	1,065.6	53.28	106.56	$98,928.18

4.  Recordkeeping Requirements

    A.  Read instructions	See 4B

	    B.  Plan activities	N/A

	    C.  Implement activities 	N/A

	    D.  Develop record system	N/A

    E.  Time to enter information

        Records of all information required          by standards n	0.25 52	13	140	1,820	91	182	$168,965.52

    F.  Time to train personnel	N/A

	    G. Time to adjust existing ways to                 comply with previously applicable            requirements	N/A

	    H. Time to transmit or disclose                      information o 0.25	2	0.5	140	70	3.5	7	$6,498.66

     I. Time for audits 	N/A

	Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	18,105.2	905.26	1,810.52	$1,680,831.02

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	20,821	$1,680,831

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be subject to the rule will be 140, which equates to 66 coating and printing sources, and 74 slashing, dyeing, and finishing sources. There will be one additional new source per year that will become subject to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $42.55 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, (Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.(  The rates are from column 1, (Total compensation.(  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  This applies only to coating and printing facilities.

d  This applies only to slashing, dyeing and finishing facilities.

e  Occurs one time for new sources and involves one-time startup costs associated with initial compliance determination and acquisition, installation, and utilization of technology and systems needed to support recordkeeping and reporting.

f  It is assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to repeat performance tests.

g  We have assumed that it will take 40 hours for each respondent to coordinate with suppliers.

h  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will report monitoring exceedances.

i  We have assumed that 90 percent of respondents will report no excess emissions.

j  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will file a startup, shutdown, malfunction reports.

k  Semiannual reports are required.

l  It is assumed that 10 percent of respondents will report compliance deviations.

m  It is assumed that 90 percent of respondents will report no compliance deviations.

n  It is assumed that all of the respondents will be required to record information on a weekly basis.

o  It is assumed that respondents will be required to transmit/disclose information on a semiannual basis.

p  It is assumed that 20 percent of the coating and printing facilities will use solvent recovery equipment (20x66=13.2)

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO)

	Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

 per year

(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant  per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ b

1.   Initial performance test c	495	1	495	1	495	24.75	49.5	  $23,077.39

2.   Repeat performance test                 preparations c, e	4

	0.1

	0.4

	1

	0.4

	0.02

	0.04

	$18.65

3.   Repeat performance test c, e	495	0.1	49.5	1	49.5	2.47	4.95 $2,307.45

4.   Report Review

        Notification of applicability	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of construction/

        reconstruction	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of anticipated              startup	2	1	2	1	2	0.1 0.2	$93.24

        Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of initial                      performance test c 2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of compliance             status c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1 0.2	$93.24

        Review of initial performance         test report c	8	1	8	1	8 0.4	0.8	$372.97

        Review of repeat                            performance test report c, f	8	0.1	0.8	1	0.8	0.04	0.08	$37.30

        Review of excess emissions           report c, g	8	1	8	6.6	52.8 2.64	5.28	$2,461.59

        Review of no excess                       emissions report c, h 2	1	2	59.4	118.8	5.94	11.88	$5,538.58

        Review of startup, shutdown,          malfunction reports c, i	2 1	2	13.2	26.4	1.32	2.64	$1,230.80

        Review of compliance                    deviations report d, j	8 1	8	7.4	59.2	2.96	5.92	$2,759.96

        Review of no compliance               deviations reports d, k	2 1	2	66.6	133.2	6.66	13.32	$6,209.91

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	1,099

$44,574

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be subject to the rule will be 140, which equates to 66 coating and printing sources, and 74 slashing, dyeing, and finishing sources.  There will be one additional new source per year that will become subject to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses:  Managerial rate of $56.02 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6), Technical rate of $41.57 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $22.50 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2005 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.

c  This applies only to coating and printing facilities.

d  This applies only to slashing, dyeing and finishing facilities.

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of new sources will have to repeat performance test preparations and testing.

f  Assume that 10 percent of new sources will review the repeat performance test report.

g  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will be engaged in the reviewing of excess emissions reports.

h  We have assumed that 90 percent of respondents will be engaged in the reviewing of no excess emissions reports.

i  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to review the startup, shutdown, malfunction reports.

j  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will review the compliance deviations report.

k  We have assumed that 90 percent of respondents will review the no compliance deviations report.

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   12


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60416-60419]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25329]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76059; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
FINRA Rule 0150 to Apply FINRA Rule 2121 and its Supplementary Material
.01 and .02 to Transactions in Exempted Securities That Are Government
Securities

September 30, 2015.
    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 September 17, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 0150, Application of Rules
to Exempted Securities Except Municipal Securities, so that FINRA Rule
2121 and its Supplementary Material .01 and .02, which govern mark-ups
and commissions, will apply to transactions in exempted securities that
are government securities.
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics.
* * * * *

0100. GENERAL STANDARDS

* * * * *

0150. Application of Rules to Exempted Securities Except Municipal
Securities

    (a) through (c) No Change.
    (d) FINRA Rule 2121 is applicable to transactions in, and business
activities relating to, exempted securities that are government
securities.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    Rule 0150(c) enumerates the FINRA rules and the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'') that apply to
transactions in, and business activities relating to, exempted
securities, except municipal securities, conducted by members and
associated persons.\3\ Currently, this rule does not include Rule 2121,
Supplementary Material .01, or Supplementary Material .02, which govern
mark-ups and commissions (``mark-up rule'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The terms exempted securities, government securities, and
municipal securities are defined in Sections 3(a)(12), 3(a)(42), and
3(a)(29) of the Act, respectively. The current FINRA rulebook
consists of: (1) FINRA Rules; (2) NASD Rules; and (3) rules
incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated NYSE Rules'') (together, the
NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules are referred to as the
``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD Rules generally apply to
all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those
members of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual
Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members, unless such
rules have a more limited application by their terms. For more
information about the rulebook consolidation process, see
Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process).
    \4\ NASD Rule 2440, IM-2440-1, and IM-2440-2 were recently moved
to the FINRA rules without any substantive changes, becoming Rule
2121, Supplementary Material .01, and Supplementary Material .02,
respectively. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72208 (May 21,
2014), 79 FR 30675 (May 28, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2014-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for not applying certain FINRA and NASD rules, including
the mark-up rules, to exempted securities (except municipal securities)
is largely historical. Prior to 1993, there were statutory limitations
on NASD's ability to apply sales practice rules, including the mark-up
rules, to transactions in exempted securities. Specifically, Section
15A(f) of the Act imposed limitations on the authority of registered
securities associations over transactions by a registered broker or
dealer in an exempted security.\5\ This provision was eliminated as
part of the Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993 (``GSAA'').\6\
Following the GSAA, the NASD proposed to apply certain NASD rules to
exempted securities other than to municipal securities, although it did
not propose to apply the mark-up rule then in effect (NASD Rule 2440
and IM-2440-1) to such securities.\7\ Rather, the NASD stated that it
intended to review the specific application of these rules to the
government securities market and that it was developing an
interpretation of the mark-up rule with respect to exempted securities
and other debt securities.\8\ The NASD further stated that actions for
conduct generally encompassed by the NASD mark-up rule in the
government securities market could be brought under NASD Rule 2110
(Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade).\9\ In 2001,
NASD adopted Rule 0116 (now FINRA Rule 0150), which set forth the NASD
rules that would apply to transactions in exempted securities, except
municipal securities.\10\ In 2007, the SEC approved IM-2440-2, which
set forth a mark-up policy for transactions in debt securities, except
municipal securities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Prior to 1986, Section 15A(f) provided that ``[n]othing in
this section shall be construed to apply with respect to any
transaction by a broker or dealer in any exempted security.'' See 15
U.S.C. 78o-3 (historical notes).
    In 1986, the Government Securities Act of 1986 (``GSA'') was
enacted, which established a federal system for the regulation of
brokers and dealers who transact business in government securities
and certain other exempted securities. See Government Securities Act
of 1986, Pub. L. 99-571, 100 Stat. 3208 (1986). The GSA, among other
things, amended Section 15A(f) to provide that, ``[e]xcept as
provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, nothing in this
section shall be construed to apply with respect to any transaction
by a registered broker or dealer in any exempted security.'' See
Government Securities Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-571, Sec.  102(g)(1),
100 Stat. 3208 (1986). Paragraph (f)(2), which was added by the GSA,
provided that a registered securities association could adopt and
implement rules with respect to exempted securities to (1) enforce
members' compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act and
rules and regulations thereunder, (2) adequately discipline its
members, (3) inspect members' books and records, and (4) prohibit
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive and false advertising. Id.
    \6\ See Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993, Pub. L.
103-202, Sec.  106(b)(1), 107 Stat. 2344 (1993).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37588 (August 20,
1996), 61 FR 44100 (August 27, 1996) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-95-39).
    \8\ See id. at 44104-44105 nn.3-4.
    \9\ See id. at 44113 (noting that Amendment No. 5 to the
proposal ``clarifies and reminds members that [NASD] rules requiring
members to adhere to just and equitable principles of trade apply to
conduct that may violate the Fair Prices and Commissions provision
and the Mark-Up Policy.'')
    NASD Rule 2110 has since been adopted as FINRA Rule 2010. See
Securities Exchange Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR
57174 (October 1, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2008-
028).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44631 (July 31,
2001), 66 FR 41283 (August 7, 2001) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-00-38).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55638 (April 16,
2007), 72 FR 20150 (April 23, 2007) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2003-141). As noted above, NASD Rule 2440, IM-2440-1, and IM-
2440-2 were recently moved to the FINRA rulebook without any
substantive changes, becoming FINRA Rule 2121, Supplementary
Material .01, and Supplementary Material .02, respectively. See
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is now proposing to amend Rule 0150 so that Rule 2121, along
with Supplementary Material .01 and .02, would apply to transactions
in, and business activities relating to, exempted securities that are
government securities, as defined in Section 3(a)(42) of the Exchange
Act.\12\ FINRA believes that amending Rule 0150 to apply the mark-up
rule to transactions in government securities is consistent with the
GSAA. FINRA also believes that amending Rule 0150 in this manner is
consistent with NASD's application of certain of its rules, following
the GSAA, to exempted securities except for municipal securities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This includes U.S. Treasury securities, as defined in FINRA
Rule 6710(p). As defined in Rule 6710(p), a U.S. Treasury Security
means a ``security issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to
fund the operations of the federal government or to retire such
outstanding securities.''
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37588 (August 20,
1996), 61 FR 44100 (August 27, 1996) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-95-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also notes the regulatory benefits of applying the mark-up
rule to

government securities. Under current rules, if FINRA staff wishes to
bring a case alleging excessive mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions in
transactions in exempted securities other than municipal securities,
such as agency debt securities or U.S. Treasury securities, FINRA must
bring the case under Rule 2010. Amending Rule 0150 to apply the mark-up
rule to transactions and business activities relating to government
securities would provide a specific cause of action under which conduct
involving such securities could be regulated, in addition to the more
general provisions of Rule 2010. As such, this proposed rule change
would clearly signal to members that conduct relating to mark-ups and
commissions in the market for government securities directly implicates
the mark-up rule, in addition to Rule 2010. FINRA also notes that the
mark-up rule provides specific criteria by which members should assess
debt mark-ups and mark-downs.\14\ Amending Rule 0150 to apply these
standards to transactions in government securities would provide both
members and FINRA staff with clearer standards by which to measure the
propriety of mark-ups, mark-downs and commissions in such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 2121, Supplementary Material .02 (Additional Mark-
Up Policy For Transactions in Debt Securities, Except Municipal
Securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, FINRA believes that amending Rule 0150 to
apply to government securities would have little impact upon members.
Rule 2010 already governs transactions in government securities, which
would include instances of improper or excessive mark-ups, mark-downs
or commissions. Although this proposal would apply the more specific
provisions of the mark-up rule to transactions involving government
securities, these provisions are already applicable to corporate debt
securities. Member firms that currently engage in transactions in
corporate debt will therefore already be familiar with the application
of the mark-up rule, and FINRA believes that most firms apply
substantially similar standards to transactions in all fixed income
securities.
    FINRA also does not believe that this proposal will impact the
reporting or surveillance of transactions in government securities.
FINRA currently requires members to report transactions in many
government securities (i.e., agency debentures and agency asset-backed
securities) to its Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE''),
and actively surveils the markets in such securities. For those
government securities that are not TRACE-eligible, such as U.S.
Treasury securities, any review of transactions in such securities
pursuant to the mark-up rule would occur as it does today, e.g.,
through a manual process that is part of FINRA's regular examination
cycle.
    FINRA notes that, following the end of the comment period for this
proposal, it will consult with the U.S. Department of the Treasury with
respect to the application of the mark-up rule to transactions in
government securities that are U.S. Treasury securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA also notes that, pursuant to Section 19(b)(5) of the
Act, the SEC ``shall consult with and consider the views of the
Secretary of the Treasury prior to approving a proposed rule filed
by a registered securities association that primarily concerns
conduct related to transactions in government securities, except
where the Commission determines that an emergency exists requiring
expeditious or summary action and publishes its reasons therefor.''
See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed
rule change will be effective upon Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\17\ which requires
that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate. FINRA believes that amending Rule 0150 so
that the mark-up rule will apply to government securities is consistent
with the Act, because government securities can be subject to instances
of excessive mark-ups, and investors in government securities will
therefore benefit from the specific application of the mark-up rule to
that market. FINRA also believes that this proposal is consistent with
both the GSAA and with NASD's subsequent application of certain of its
rules to exempted securities except for municipal securities. FINRA
also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
as it will provide FINRA with specific authority over instances of
excessive mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions relating to government
securities that may be pursued, in addition to the more general
provisions of Rule 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed
rule change is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory
obligations by extending the rule governing mark-ups and commissions to
government securities. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change
will have minimal impact on members, as FINRA currently requires
members to report transactions in many government securities, and
members that charge an excessive mark-up, markdown or commission in
transactions in exempted securities are already subject to the
provisions of Rule 2010.

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

    Written comments were solicited in Regulatory Notice 13-07 but none
were received.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In 2013, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 13-07, which
sought comment on a proposed rule change that would have amended
several aspects of the mark-up rule, including amending Rule 0150 to
apply the mark-up rule to certain government securities. Although
FINRA received eight comment letters in connection with this
Regulatory Notice, none of those comment letters addressed the
proposed rule change that is the subject of this rule filing. A copy
of the Regulatory Notice is included as Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 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 90 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 or disapprove 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 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2015-033 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-033. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2015-033 and should be
submitted on or before October 27, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25329 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50574-50577]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20220]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0612; FRL-9915-67-Region-9]

Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard in the Southeast Desert Nonattainment Area in
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Southeast Desert nonattainment area has attained the
1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This proposed
determination is based on complete, quality-assured, and certified data
for the most recent three-year period (2011-2013).

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0612, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or Deliver: Tom Kelly, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to
EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically on

the www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material or
large maps), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Analysis
III. Proposed EPA Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires us to establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for
certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute
to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare (see sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In 1979, we
promulgated an ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million (ppm), one-hour
average (``1-hour ozone standard''). See 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979.
    An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard if
there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR section 50.9, based on three
consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ``expected number'' of
days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above
0.12 ppm is greater than one (1.0) at any site in the area, when
averaged over three consecutive calendar years.\1\ An exceedance occurs
when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds
0.124 ppm. For more information, please see ``National 1-hour primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.9)
and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical term
that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term
``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily maximum
hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible
number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any ozone area that was still designated nonattainment
under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other area violating the 1-hour
ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the
1987 through 1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991). The 1990 Amended Act further classified these areas,
based on the severity of their nonattainment problem, as Marginal,
Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. In response, EPA designated the
Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA)
(``Southeast Desert'') as ``Severe-17'' nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15,
2007.\2\ See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. Outside of Indian country,
the Los Angeles portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), the San
Bernardino County portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), and the
Riverside County portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Southeast Desert covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region
in San Bernardino County, the Coachella Valley region in Riverside
County, and the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County (see
40 CFR 81.305 for the precise boundaries of the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area).
    \3\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's classification.
Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements
and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Severe
and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent planning requirements
and were provided more time to attain the standard. Two measures that
are triggered if a Severe or Extreme area failed to attain the standard
by the applicable attainment date are contingency measures [section
172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source fee provision [sections
182(d)(3) and 185] (``major source fee program'' or ``section 185 fee
program'').
    In 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard (0.08 ppm)
(``1997 8-hour ozone standard''), 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997), to
replace the 1-hour ozone standard. While the 1-hour ozone standard was
revoked in 2005, we continue to determine whether areas attain, or fail
to attain, the 1-hour ozone standard because of the continued
applicability of certain 1-hour ozone control requirements in areas,
such as the Southeast Desert, that are designated as nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the connection between some of those
requirements and attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
    In the decades since the 1990 CAA Amendments, in large part due to
decreases in upwind emissions of ozone precursors, 1-hour ozone
concentrations in the Southeast Desert have decreased substantially.
For instance, from 1990 to 2005, the number of exceedances of the
standard in the Southeast Desert decreased from 27 to 4 at the Palm
Springs monitor in Coachella Valley and from 59 to 3 at the Hesperia
monitor in Victor Valley. However, despite the improvements, upon
review of the ambient data for the three years preceding the applicable
attainment date (i.e., 2005-2007), we determined that the Southeast
Desert failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the 2007 statutory
deadline. See 76 FR 82133 (December 30, 2011).
    In our proposal to determine that the Southeast Desert had failed
to attain the standard, we noted that preliminary review of data from
2008 through 2010 suggested that the trend toward cleaner air in the
Southeast Desert was continuing. 76 FR 56694, at 56700 (September 14,
2011). Indeed, the trend has continued with 2010-2012 being the first
three-year period in which preliminary review of the data suggests that
the Southeast Desert attained the standard. Given the further
improvement in ozone conditions in the Southeast Desert, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) has requested that EPA make a determination
that the Southeast Desert has attained the 1-hour

ozone standard.\4\ Year 2013 data is now available, and thus EPA's
action herein is based on the most recent three-year period (2011-
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
February 25, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour
ozone standard is generally based upon three years of complete,\5\
quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at
established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (``SLAMS'') in the
nonattainment area and entered into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the
AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies
primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment
status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All data are
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining
attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data
with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater
than 90% with no single year less than 75%. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I. There are less stringent data requirements for showing
that a monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a
violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9, the 1-hour ozone standard is
attained at a monitoring site when the expected number of days per
calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm
is equal to or less than 1.0, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix
H.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The average number of expected exceedances is determined by
averaging the expected exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard over
a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB is the Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO)
responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring
requirements in the Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County
portions of the Southeast Desert, and the SCAQMD is the PQAO
responsible for assuring that the requirements are met in the Riverside
County portion of the Southeast Desert. The AVAQMD operates monitors in
the Los Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert; the MDAQMD
operates monitors in the San Bernardino County portion of the Southeast
Desert; and the SCAQMD operate monitors in the Riverside County portion
of the Southeast Desert. All agencies are required to submit annual
monitoring network plans to EPA. The AVAQMD and MDAQMD monitoring
networks are included in the CARB annual network plan, while SCAQMD
submits a separate annual network plan. These plans discuss the status
of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.
    With respect to the annual network plans submitted by CARB that
includes the AVAQMD and MDAQMD monitors, we have reviewed these plans
and found that they meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part
58.\7\ The Technical System Audit (TSA) we conducted in 2011 of the
CARB PQAO included a review of the network requirements in AVAQMD and
MDAQMD. In the TSA, we concluded that the combined ambient air
monitoring networks operated by CARB and the air districts currently
meet or exceed the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS
monitoring sites for ozone in the Southeast Desert. Also, AVAQMD and
MDAQMD annually certify that the data submitted to AQS are quality-
assured.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB,
dated May 7, 2014.
    \8\ See, e.g., letters from Christopher A. Collins, Supervising
AQ Engineer, MDAQMD, to Fletcher Clover, EPA Region IX, dated May 6,
2014, certifying 2013 data from AVAQMD and MDAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed SCAQMD's plans for compliance with the applicable
requirements in 40 CFR part 58 on an annual basis. With respect to
ozone, EPA has found that the SCAQMD's network plans meet the
applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58.\9\ Furthermore, we
concluded in our TSA of the SCAQMD network conducted during April 2010,
that the ambient air monitoring network operated by SCAQMD currently
meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS
monitoring sites for all criteria pollutants, and the ozone monitoring
sites within the Southeast Desert are properly located with respect to
monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other site criteria, as
required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.\10\ Also, SCAQMD annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Dr. Matt
Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology
Advancement, SCAQMD, dated March 11, 2014.
    \10\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
U.S. EPA Region IX, to Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD,
dated March 14, 2011, and enclosure titled, ``Technical System Audit
Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 13-April
16, 2010.''
    \11\ See, e.g., letter from Matt Miyasoto, Deputy Executive
Office, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 27,
2014, certifying 2013 ozone data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were eight ozone monitoring sites located throughout the
Southeast Desert in calendar years 2011 through 2013 that collected
data for regulatory purposes: one in Los Angeles County, two in
Riverside County, and five in San Bernardino County.\12\ All of the
sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using Federal
Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors. AVAQMD operates the one monitor in
Los Angeles County. SCAQMD operates two in Riverside County. MDAQMD
operates four in San Bernardino County. The National Park Service
operates one monitor in San Bernardino County at Joshua Tree National
Park (Yucca Valley).\13\ Also, the National Park Service annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See figures 5 and 11 from CARB's State and Local Air
Monitoring Network Plan (June 2009) for illustrations of the
locations of the ozone monitors within the Southeast Desert.
    \13\ The National Park Service also operates an ozone monitor in
Riverside County at Joshua Tree National Park (Cottonwood Visitor
Center; AQS ID 06-065-0008), but until recently, the monitor has not
been either a federal reference method or federal equivalent method
monitor. Thus, we are not using the data from this Cottonwood
monitor for the proposed determination of attainment.
    \14\ See, e.g., letter from Kristi Morris, Program Manager,
National Park Service, to Lew Weinstock, EPA, dated April 29, 2014,
certifying 2013 ozone data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various
monitoring sites in the Southeast Desert, showing the expected
exceedances per year and as an average over the 2011-2013 period. The
data summarized in table 1 are considered complete for the purposes of
determining if the standard is met.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The criteria for data completeness are met at all of the
ozone monitors in the Southeast Desert over the 2011-2013 period.

              Table 1--One-Hour Ozone Data for the Southeast Desert 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Expected exceedances by year     Expected
                                                                   ------------------------------ exceedances 3-
            General location                   Site (AQS ID)                                       year  average
                                                                      2011      2012      2013   ---------------
                                                                                2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley/Los Angeles County.....  Lancaster (06-037-9033)..       0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
Coachella Valley/Riverside County......  Indio (06-065-2002)......       0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
Coachella Valley/Riverside County......  Palm Springs (06-065-           0.0       1.0       0.0             0.3
                                          5001).
Northern portion of SE Desert AQMA/San   Barstow (06-071-0001)....       0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
 Bernardino County.
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA/San         Hesperia (06-071-4001)...       1.0       0.0       0.0             0.3
 Bernardino County.
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA/San         Phelan (06-071-0012).....       0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
 Bernardino County.
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA/San         Victorville (06-071-0306)       0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
 Bernardino County.
Joshua Tree National Park/San            Yucca Valley (06-071-           0.0       0.0       0.0             0.0
 Bernardino County.                       9002).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AQS Quick Look Report, May 9, 2014 (in the docket to this proposed action).

    Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the Southeast Desert
occur in the far southwestern portion of the area, near mountain passes
through which pollutants are transported to the Southeast Desert from
the South Coast Air Basin. As shown in table 1, the highest three-year
average of expected exceedances at any site in the Southeast Desert for
2011-2013 is 0.3 at Palm Springs in Riverside County and Hesperia in
San Bernardino County. The calculated exceedance rate of 0.3 represents
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of
expected exceedances less than or equal to 1).
    Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable
ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and
summarized in table 1, we propose to determine that the Southeast
Desert has attained the 1-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H) based on the most recent three years of monitoring
data for the area (2011-2013). Data for 2014 will be reviewed prior to
our final action to ensure that it is consistent with continued
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Southeast Desert.

III. Proposed EPA Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Southeast Desert Area has
attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2011-2013
monitoring period.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed
by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 12, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-20220 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P