[Federal Register: February 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5310-5312]
[DOCID:fr02fe10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 22, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-40-000.
    Applicants: BlackRock, Inc.
    Description: Request for Authorization to Acquire Securities Under
Section 203(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act of BlackRock, Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010

    Docket Numbers: EC10-41-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., FirstEnergy
Generation Corp.

    Description: Application of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative,
Inc. and FirstEnergy Generation Corp. for Order Authorizing Transaction
Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, and Request for Waivers.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 11, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1113-007.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits filing in compliance with the FERC 12/17/09 Order on Rehearing
etc.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-88-004.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Company et al. submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 4.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1254-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-35-001.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado et al. submit
various executed nonconfirming Service Agreements.
    Filed Date: 01/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 05, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-47-003.
    Applicants: Geodyne Energy, L.L.C.
    Description: Geodyne Energy, LLC submits the Petition for
Acceptance of Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority for Geodyne.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-86-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits compliance filing addressing the directives in the Commission's
Dec. 18 Order and providing the associated revisions to the Midwest ISO
etc.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-377-001.
    Applicants: Elm Creek Wind II LLC.
    Description: Elm Creek Wind II LLC submits a substitute original
sheet 1 to FERC electric tariff, original volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-378-001.
    Applicants: Buffalo Ridge II LLC.
    Description: Buffalo Ridge II LLC submits a substitute original
sheet 1 to FERC electric tariff, original volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-434-001.
    Applicants: CPI USA North Carolina LLC.
    Description: CPI USA North Carolina LLC submits Original Sheet 1 et
al. to FERC Electric Tariff, First revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-435-001.
    Applicants: CPIDC, Inc.
    Description: CPIDC resubmits Original Sheet 1 et al. to FERC
Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-436-001.
    Applicants: CPI Energy Services (US) LLC.
    Description: CPI Energy Services, LLC submits Notice of Name Change
and Succession.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-441-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits an Amended and Restated
Interconnection Agreement dated 11/16/09 etc.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-468-001.
    Applicants: Google Energy LLC.
    Description: Clarifying amendments to Google Energy LLC's
Application for market based rate authority and granting of waiver and
blanket authorizations.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-580-001.
    Applicants: Silverhill Investments Corp.
    Description: Silverhill Investments Corp submits corrected
application for market-based rate authorization for related waiver and
request for blanket authorization.
    Filed Date: 01/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100113-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-607-000; ER10-608-000; ER10-609-000; ER10-610-
000; ER10-611-000; ER10-612-000.
    Applicants: Coalinga Cogeneration Company; Kern River Cogeneration
Company; Salinas River Cogeneration Company; Mid-Set Cogeneration
Company; Sycamore Cogeneration Company; Sargent Canyon Cogeneration
Company.
    Description: Coalinga Cogeneration Company submits a Petition for
Order Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff and for Waivers and Blankets
Approvals.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-620-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Memorandum of Understanding
between PacifiCorp and Helper City under PacifiCorp FERC Electric
Tariff First Revised Volume 6.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-622-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Macquarie Energy, LLC submits a notice of succession
to Macquarie Cook Power Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-623-000; ER10-624-000; ER10-625-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Portland General Electric
Company; Avista Corporation.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy Inc et al. submits revisions to
Section 13.8

and 14.6 of their respective Open Access Transmission Tariffs.
    Filed Date: 01/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100120-0238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-18-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to Application for Authorization of the
Assumption of Liabilities and the Issuance of Securities Under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act by Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 1, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-22-000.
    Applicants: Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation.
    Description: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's Supplemental
to its Application for Authorization to Issue Short-Term Debt Under
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-23-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
    Description: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation's
Supplemental to its Application for Authorization to Issue Short-Term
Debt Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-24-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company's Supplemental to its
Application for Authorization to Issue Short-Term Debt Under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-25-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Generating Company.
    Description: Application of Allegheny Generating Company for
Authorization Under Section 204.
    Filed Date: 01/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100119-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 09, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH08-23-001.
    Applicants: Boralex Inc.
    Description: Form FERC 65A of Boralex Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 11, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2084 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46010-46014]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0172]
RIN 2126-AB43

Self Reporting of Out-of-State Convictions

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Current regulations require both commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders and States with certified CDL programs to report a CDL
holder's out-of-State traffic conviction to the driver's State of
licensure. FMCSA proposes to reduce the impact of this reporting
redundancy by providing that if a State in which the conviction occurs
has a certified CDL program in substantial compliance with FMCSA's
regulations, then an individual CDL holder convicted in that State is
considered to be in compliance with his/her out-of-State traffic
conviction reporting obligations because the State where the conviction
occurred will report the violation to the CDL holder's State of
licensure. This proposed change would reduce a regulatory burden on
both individuals and States.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2012-0172 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to
the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any
time after the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Enforcement
and Program Delivery, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202)
366-5014 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2012-0172), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comment and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop-down menu, select
``Proposed Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2012-0172'' in the ``Keyword'' box,
and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a
Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comment by mail
or hand delivery, submit it in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
your comment by mail and would like to know that it reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change the proposed rule based on your comment.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble,
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on
the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right-hand side of the screen.
Then in the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``FMCSA-2012-0172'' and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Privacy Act Statement for the
Federal Docket Management System published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Congress enacted the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
(CMVSA) [Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C.
chapter 313] to improve highway safety by ensuring that drivers of
large trucks and buses are qualified to operate those vehicles and to
remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. To achieve
these goals, the CMVSA established the Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) Program and required States to ensure that drivers convicted of
certain serious traffic violations are prohibited from operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Although State participation in the
CDL program is voluntary, the CMVSA created incentives by conditioning
certain Federal highway and grant funding on States maintaining a
certified CDL program (CMVSA Sec. Sec.  12010, 12011, codified at 49
U.S.C. 31313, 31314). One of the CMVSA's CDL program requirements was
that States report CDL holders' out-of-State traffic convictions to
their licensing States within 10 days of the conviction (CMVSA Sec.
12009(a)(9)). The CMVSA also established a requirement for CDL holders
to report these same out-of-State traffic convictions to their
licensing States within 30 days of the conviction (CMVSA Sec.
12003(a)(1), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31303(a)). Congress authorized the
Secretary to issue regulations to implement these provisions (CMVSA
Sec.  12018(a), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31317). The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor, subsequently issued
regulations, including 49 CFR 383.31(a), which implemented the
requirement that CDL holders report out-of-State traffic convictions to
their licensing States (52 FR 20574, June 1, 1987). FHWA did not issue
regulations implementing the States' reporting requirement at that
time.
    On July 5, 1994, Congress recodified title 49 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) [Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat. 475 (the 1994 Recodification
Act)]. Among other things, the 1994 Recodification Act corrected an
ambiguity in CMVSA Sec.  12009(a)(9). The wording of the statute did
not make clear who had the obligation to report the CDL holders' out-
of-State violations: The State or the driver. The 1994 Recodification
Act added language making it explicit that States must report an out-
of-State CDL holder's traffic conviction to the licensing State within
10 days of the

conviction (108 Stat. 1024, 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(9)). However, Congress
did not repeal the requirement that individual CDL holders report the
same information within 30 days of conviction.
    The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) [Pub. L.
106-159, 113 Stat. 1748] amended numerous provisions of title 49 of the
U.S.C., related to the licensing and sanctioning of CMV drivers
required to hold a CDL and directed the Secretary to amend regulations
to correct specific weaknesses in the CDL program. One such provision
directed the Secretary to develop a uniform system for the State-to-
State electronic transmission of the out-of-State CDL holders' traffic
conviction information. FMCSA subsequently issued regulations
implementing MCSIA and other statutory requirements, including CMVSA
Sec.  12009(a)(9). Those regulations included 49 CFR 384.209, which
requires States to report out-of-State CDL holders' traffic convictions
to their licensing States as a minimum requirement of maintaining a
certified CDL program (67 FR 49742, July 31, 2002).
    The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR
1.73(e)(1) to carry out the CMVSA functions vested in the Secretary.

III. Background

    Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, issued January 18, 2011,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), prompted DOT to publish a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR
8940, February 16, 2011). This notice requested comments on a plan for
reviewing existing rules, as well as identification of existing rules
that DOT should review because they may be outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome. DOT placed all retrospective
regulatory review comments, including a transcript of a March 14, 2011,
public meeting, in docket DOT-OST-2011-0025. DOT received comments from
102 members of the public, with many providing multiple suggestions.
    In connection with this initiative, a commenter identified as
appropriate for review the requirements of 49 CFR 383.31(a) and
384.209, which provide for both individual CDL holders and States with
certified CDL programs to report the same information about CDL
holders' out-of-State convictions. FMCSA agreed with this suggestion.
Although States are not required to participate in FMCSA's CDL
certification program, all 50 States and the District of Columbia
currently maintain certified programs, due in part to the financial
incentives described above. In practice, this means that compliance
with both Sec. Sec.  383.31(a) and 384.209 has resulted in a reporting
redundancy.
    Both individual CDL holders and States have previously informed
FMCSA that they believe this redundancy creates an unnecessary burden.
Many States have reported to FMCSA that they do not have systems in
place to process the information that comes from individuals and that
they prefer to receive the information through official State-to-State
communications, which are more efficient and secure. Currently, all
States but one use the telecommunications network associated with the
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a clearinghouse
and repository administered by the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), to transmit this information
electronically. The remaining State transmits the information via mail.
Therefore individual communications from CDL holders are redundant and
inefficient.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to reduce the burden on individuals and States
by harmonizing the requirements of Sec. Sec.  383.31 and 384.209. FMCSA
reads the statutory provisions authorizing these regulations, 49 U.S.C.
31303(a) and 31311(a)(9), as two elements of the CDL program Congress
originally established in CMVSA, as opposed to separate or independent
requirements. Reading the statutory provisions together as a part of an
integrated regulatory scheme, the Agency believes that Congress
intended for States to obtain accurate and timely information about
their CDL holders' out-of-State traffic convictions so States are able
to impose the appropriate sanctions for disqualifying offenses. The
Agency does not believe that redundant reporting adds any special value
to the CDL regulatory scheme. Rather, FMCSA believes that Congress
created the statutory redundancy because State participation in the CDL
program is voluntary, and as a result, it saw the need to create a
method of reporting in the event that a State does not maintain a
certified CDL program. That said, there currently exists a reporting
redundancy because all 51 eligible jurisdictions have certified CDL
programs and therefore must report a CDL holder's out-of-State traffic
convictions (49 CFR 384.209).
    To reduce this redundancy, FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  383.31 to
provide that if the State in which a CDL holder is convicted for a
traffic control violation has an FMCSA-certified CDL program, the
Agency will consider the CDL holder to be in compliance with Sec.
383.31(a) because the State where the conviction occurred will report
the violation to the CDL holder's State of licensure. FMCSA believes
that this change would effectuate Congress's intent that States have
the requisite information to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from
the highways, while minimizing inefficiencies and reducing an
unnecessary administrative burden on both individual CDL holders and
States.

V. Regulatory Analyses

E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is a not significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), or within
the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures because the
proposed rule is not expected to generate substantial congressional or
public interest. The estimated cost of the proposed rule is not
expected to exceed the $143.1 million \1\ annual threshold for economic
significance; therefore, any costs associated with the rule are
expected to be minimal. The proposed rule would reduce a regulatory
burden on current reporting requirements affecting individuals and
States and thus should result in decreased economic burden. This rule
would not require a change in the business practice of already
compliant states currently using CDLIS, the clearinghouse and
repository system. The Agency expects this rule to generate cost
savings in the form of reduced paperwork burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This is the value equivalent of $100 million in CT 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2010 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Office of the Secretary of Transportation Memo:
Threshold of Significant Regulatory Actions Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. July 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small

businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) see
National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulaotry-flexibility/601.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), the
proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, I certify the
proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of
contact, Robert Redmond, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rulemaking would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $143.1
million \3\ or more in any one year. Any agency circulating a rule
likely to result in a Federal mandate requiring expenditures by a
State, local, or Tribal government or by the private sector of $143.1
million or more in any one year must prepare a written statement
incorporating various assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are
delineated in the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ibid., V Regulatory Analyses--Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' FMCSA has determined that this proposal
would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor,
or require through regulations. FMCSA has determined that there is no
new information collection requirement associated with this proposed
rule. FMCSA expects that this rule would result in a paperwork burden
reduction that cannot be quantified because States do not have
mechanisms for tracking or processing driver-reported out-of-State
traffic convictions. States rely on State-to-State reporting to gather
this information, which is more accurate and secure than driver self-
reporting.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this notice of proposed rulemaking for the purpose
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further
analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph (s)(2). The Categorical Exclusion
(CE) in paragraph (s)(2) covers requirements for drivers to notify
their States of licensure of certain convictions. The proposal in this
rule is covered by this CE and does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. The Categorical Exclusion determination is
available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site
listed under ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under E.O. 13211.

E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. As discussed previously, this proposed rule is not
economically

significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is
required. In any event, FMCSA does not anticipate that this regulatory
action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk
that could disproportionately affect children.

E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt Government technical
standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are
available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of
existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in
a separate statement to OMB. This rule does not propose to adopt any
technical standards.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment of this rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations
Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) [set out as a
note to 5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment considers any impacts of the
rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related
matters. FMCSA has determined this rule would have no privacy impacts.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 383 as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES

    1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502;
secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1766, 1767; sec.
4140 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. Amend Sec.  383.31(a) by revising paragraph (a) and adding new
paragraph (d), to read as follows:

Sec.  383.31  Notification of convictions for driver violations.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
person who operates a commercial motor vehicle, who has a commercial
driver's license issued by a State or jurisdiction, and who is
convicted of violating, in any type of motor vehicle, a State or local
law relating to motor vehicle traffic control (other than a parking
violation) in a State or jurisdiction other than the one which issued
his/her license, shall notify an official designated by the State or
jurisdiction which issued such license, of such conviction. The
notification must be made within 30 days after the date that the person
has been convicted.
* * * * *
    (d) A person is considered to be in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the State or
jurisdiction that issued the citation resulting in a conviction is in
substantial compliance with 49 CFR part 384, subpart B, and has not
been de-certified in accordance with 49 CFR 384.405.

    Issued on: July 27, 2012.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-18902 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 33309-33311]
[DOCID:fr10jy09-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60232; File No. SR-ISE-2009-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating To Amending the Direct Edge ECN Fee Schedule

July 2, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE.
The ISE filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Direct Edge ECN's (``DECN'') fee
schedule for ISE Members \5\ to: (1) Reinstate the Super Tier Rebates,
as defined below, that will apply to ISE Members whose transactions
meet certain volume thresholds; (2) adopt new Ultra Tier Rebates, as
defined below, that will apply to ISE Members whose transactions meet
certain other volume thresholds; (3) adopt a new fee; and (4) make
certain other clean-up changes. All of the changes described herein are
applicable to ISE Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ References to ISE Members in this filing refer to DECN
Subscribers who are ISE Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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

    Purpose--DECN, a facility of ISE, operates two trading platforms,
EDGX and EDGA. During the month of June, DECN offered a promotion
whereby ISE Members that add liquidity on EDGX receive a rebate of
$0.003 per share for all securities priced at or above $1.00 (``June
Promotion''). ISE Members that remove liquidity on EDGX are charged
$0.0028 per share for all securities priced at or above $1.00 and
orders sent

to EDGX that subsequently get routed out are charged $0.0029 per share
for all securities priced at or above $1.00.
    The Exchange is now proposing to amend the DECN fee schedule to
reinstate the volume thresholds applicable to the Super Tier Rebates
that were in effect prior to the June Promotion in an effort to
maintain a competitive rate. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that,
as of July 1, 2009, the DECN fee schedule will include a per share
rebate in securities reported to Tape A and Tape C of $0.003 for
securities priced at or above $1.00 when ISE Members add liquidity on
EDGX if the ISE Member satisfies any of the following three criteria on
a daily basis, measured monthly: (i) Adding 40,000,000 shares or more
on either EDGX, EDGA or EDGX and EDGA combined; (ii) adding 20,000,000
shares or more on either EDGX, EDGA or EDGX and EDGA combined and
routing 20,000,000 shares or more through EDGA; or (iii) adding
10,000,000 shares or more of liquidity to EDGX, so long as added
liquidity on EDGX is at least 5,000,000 shares greater than the
previous calendar month. The rebate described above is referred to as a
``Super Tier Rebate'' on the DECN fee schedule. The ISE Members that
add liquidity in Tape A and Tape C securities and don't meet the Super
Tier criteria, as set forth above, receive a rebate of $0.0025 per
share for securities that are priced at or above $1.00.
    The Exchange is proposing to make certain corresponding changes so
that the changes described above are reflected throughout the DECN fee
schedule. Such changes consist of: (1) Deleting the boxed text which
discusses the June Promotion; (2) deleting language out of footnote 1
that discusses the June Promotion; and (3) changing the rebates
associated with flags ``V'' and ``Y'' from $0.003 to $0.0025 per share
for securities priced at or above $1.00.
    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a new Ultra Tier
Rebate, as defined below, whereby ISE Members will be provided a
$0.0032 rebate per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 when
ISE Members add liquidity on EDGX if the attributed MPID satisfies one
of the following criteria on a daily basis, measured monthly: (i)
Adding 100,000,000 shares or more on EDGX; or (ii) adding 50,000,000
shares or more of liquidity to EDGX, so long as added liquidity on EDGX
is at least 20,000,000 shares greater than the previous calendar month.
The liquidity required to qualify for criterion (i) above shall be
adjusted in the event that Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV''), defined
as volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to
the consolidated transaction reporting plans for Tape A, B and C
securities, falls below an average of 10,000,000,000 shares per day
(``Target TCV'') in the relevant calendar month. In such circumstances,
the adjusted amount of liquidity required to qualify under criterion
(i) above shall be the percentage that actual reported TCV represents
of Target TCV, multiplied by 100,000,000. The rebate described above is
referred to as an ``Ultra Tier Rebate'' on the DECN fee schedule. The
Exchange is adopting the Ultra Tier Rebate in an effort to increase
volume on DECN.
    The Exchange is also proposing to adopt a fee of $0.0015 per share
for securities priced at or above $1.00 anytime the ROUQ or ROUC
routing strategy is used on either EDGX or EDGA and this routing
strategy results in an execution by an Enhanced Liquidity Provider
(``ELP''). The ROUQ routing strategy enables ISE Members to interact
with the order book and ELPs who elect to receive Indications of
Interest (``IOIs'') from DECN. ROUC designated orders are multi-
destination orders that sweep the order book and ELP destinations
before any unfilled quantity is routed to low cost destinations.
Accordingly, the Exchange is assessing this fee for ISE Members'
utilization of these services.
    The Exchange is proposing to make certain clarifying changes to the
DECN fee schedule. First, the Exchange is proposing to collapse two
references to EGDA fees into a single line item because there is no
need to break out the fees by Tape as the fees are consistent
regardless of which Tape the securities are reported on. Second, the
Exchange is adding clarifying text to specify that orders routed to
Nasdaq are assessed a fee of $0.003 per share for securities priced at
or above $1.00 and to specify that this charge not only applies to
orders routed to Nasdaq from EDGA, but also applies to orders routed to
Nasdaq from EDGX.
    The fee changes discussed in this filing will become operative on
July 1, 2009.
    Basis--The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, in
that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities. In particular, reinstating the volume
thresholds applicable to the Super Tier Rebates and offering an Ultra
Tier Rebate provides pricing incentives to market participants who
route orders to DECN, allowing DECN to remain competitive. ISE notes
that DECN operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The proposed
rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to
incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to DECN. ISE
believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those charged by
other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to DECN rather
than competing venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2009-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-43. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-43 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16316 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39943-39948]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16557]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598; FRL-9683-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Illinois State
Implementation Plan, submitted on June 24, 2011, addressing regional
haze for the first implementation period. EPA received comments
disputing its proposed finding regarding best available retrofit
technology, but EPA continues to believe that Illinois' plan limits
power plant emissions as well as would be achieved by directly
requiring best available retrofit technology. Therefore, EPA finds that
the Illinois regional haze plan satisfactorily addresses Clean Air Act
section 169A and Regional Haze Rule requirements for states to remedy
any existing and prevent future anthropogenic impairment of visibility
at mandatory Class I areas. EPA is also approving two state rules and
incorporating two permits into the state implementation plan.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule
II. Comments and Responses
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule

    Illinois submitted a plan on June 24, 2011, to address the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 169A and the Regional Haze Rule,
as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.308 (40 CFR
51.308).
    EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking evaluating Illinois'
submittal on January 26, 2012, at 77 FR 3966. This notice described the
nature of the regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory
background for EPA's review of Illinois' regional haze plan. The notice
provided a lengthy delineation of the requirements that Illinois
intended to meet, including requirements for mandating BART,
consultation with other states in establishing goals representing
reasonable progress in mitigating anthropogenic visibility impairment,
and adoption of limitations as necessary to implement a long-term
strategy for reducing visibility impairment.
    Of particular interest were EPA's findings regarding BART. States
are required to address the BART

requirements for sources with significant impacts on visibility, which
Illinois defined as having at least 0.5 deciview impact on a Class I
area. Using modeling performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO), Illinois identified 10 power plants and two
refineries as having sufficient impact to warrant being subject to a
requirement representing BART.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The notice of proposed rulemaking lists 10 EGUs as being
subject to BART (including two facilities owned by City Water Light
and Power (CWLP)) but states that only 9 EGUs are subject to BART.
This is because CWLP shut down the Lakeside plant that was subject
to BART in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven of the power plants that were identified as being subject to
the requirement for BART are addressed in one of two sets of provisions
of Illinois' rules known respectively as the Combined Pollutant
Standards (CPS), 35 Ill. Administrative Code 225.233, and the Multi-
Pollutant Standards (MPS), 35 Illinois Administrative Code 225.293-
225.299. These provisions are included in Illinois' mercury rules.
These rules offer the affected utilities (Midwest Generation, Dynegy,
and Ameren) a choice of limitations, either to include 1) specific
mercury emission limitations effective in 2015 with no limits on
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides
(NOX) or 2) work practice requirements for installation of
mercury control equipment in conjunction with limits on SO2
and NOX emissions. Illinois' submittal includes letters from
the affected companies choosing the option that includes SO2
and NOX emission limits, which pursuant to Illinois' rules
establishes these limits as enforceable limits. In the case of Midwest
Generation, three of its power plants meet the criteria for being
subject to BART, and six plants are governed by the SO2 and
NOX limits in the Multi-Pollutant Standards. In the case of
Dynegy, one of its power plants meets the criteria for being subject to
BART, and four coal-fired power plants are governed by the
SO2 and NOX limits in the (CPS). In the case of
Ameren, three of its power plants meet the criteria for being subject
to BART, and five coal-fired plants are governed by the SO2
and NOX limits in the (CPS). In the notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA proposed to conclude that the emission reductions from
the (MPS) and the (CPS) would be greater than the reductions that would
occur with unit-specific implementation of BART on the subset of these
sources that meet the criteria for being subject to BART. Therefore,
EPA proposed to find that the (MPS) and the (CPS) suffice to address
the BART requirement for the power plants of these three utilities.
    Illinois also developed source-specific limits to mandate BART for
three additional power plants. These limits are adopted into two
permits, one for Kincaid Generation's Kincaid Station and one for City
Water, Light, and Power's (CWLP) Dallman Station and Lakeside Station.
CWLP shutdown Lakeside Station in 2009, and the CWLP permit requires
that the Lakeside Station never resume operation. Finally, Illinois
found that Federal consent decrees regulating emissions from the two
refineries with units subject to BART (facilities owned by ExxonMobil
and Citgo) mandate control at the refineries in Illinois at least as
much as would be required as BART. EPA proposed to conclude that
Illinois satisfied BART requirements for the affected Illinois power
plants and refineries.
    As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, Illinois did not
rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for its BART
determinations. Illinois is in the CAIR region. However, it used its
state rules, permits, and consent decrees to achieve emission
reductions that satisfy BART. This means that Illinois is not reliant
on CAIR and, thus, it has avoided the issues of other CAIR region
states that relied on CAIR. For similar reasons, Illinois' satisfaction
of regional haze rule requirements is not contingent on the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and thus is not affected by the stay of that
rule.

II. Comments and Responses

    EPA received comments from three commenters on its proposed
rulemaking on the Illinois regional haze plan. These commenters
included ExxonMobil, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Environmental Law
and Policy Center (ELPC).
    ExxonMobil comments that section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires sources to
implement BART as determined by the state (emphasis in the original),
and agrees with Illinois' and EPA's conclusion that ``emission limits
established by the consent decrees may be relied upon by Illinois for
addressing the BART requirement for these facilities.'' While EPA has
the responsibility to evaluate whether it believes that states have
made appropriate determinations as to what restrictions constitute
BART, EPA appreciates the comment supporting its position, which EPA
has no reason to change, that the Federal consent decrees for
ExxonMobil and Citgo adequately mandate BART for the two Illinois
refineries.
    The U.S. Forest Service wrote to express its appreciation to
Illinois for addressing prior Forest Service comments and to express
support for EPA's proposed approval of Illinois' plan.
    ELPC sent extensive comments objecting that control requirements
for power plants in Illinois do not suffice to meet the BART
requirements and leave Illinois short of meeting reasonable progress
requirements. These comments are addressed in detail in the discussion
that follows.
    Comment: ELPC argues that ``the plain language of the Clean Air Act
precludes alternatives to BART.'' Since the Illinois plan establishes
limits that govern the collective emissions of multiple power plants
owned by pertinent utilities, the plan relies on an alternative to BART
as described in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) rather than mandating BART on a
source-specific basis. ELPC states that BART at BART-eligible sources
is expressly mandated in Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(A). ELPC
acknowledges that the Clean Air Act authorizes limited exemptions from
BART, in cases which EPA determines pursuant to section 169A(c)(1) that
``the source does not either by itself or in combination with other
sources `emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to a significant impairment of visibility in any
mandatory class I federal area.' '' ELPC observes that ``[n]owhere in
Section 169A did Congress contemplate or sanction sweeping alternative
programs'' such as Illinois uses to address BART for many of its BART-
subject power plants ``in lieu of source specific BART.''
    ELPC acknowledges that EPA promulgated regulations reflecting its
interpretation that BART requirements may be satisfied by alternative
programs, and ELPC acknowledges that ``the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
has upheld [these] regulations.'' Nevertheless, ``because these [court
rulings] cannot be reconciled with the plan language of the Clean Air
Act,'' ELPC urges that ``EPA should not rely on [this interpretation]
to exempt Illinois from implementing BART.''
    Response: In several previous rules, EPA has concluded that Clean
Air Act section 169A may reasonably be interpreted to provide that the
requirement for BART may be satisfied by an alternative program that
provides greater visibility protection in lieu of limitations that
directly mandate BART for individual sources determined to be subject
to the BART requirement. See 40 CFR 51.308(e), 64 FR 35741-35743 (July
1, 1999), and 70 FR 39136 (July 6, 2005).

As ELPC acknowledges, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit supports that interpretation, Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``CEED'')
(finding reasonable EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) as
requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress), as has
the Ninth Circuit, Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA,
990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) Therefore, EPA views Illinois'
approach as an acceptable means of addressing the BART requirement in
section 169A.
    Comment: ELPC comments that ``Illinois was required, but failed, to
make a BART determination for each source subject to BART in the
state.'' ELPC lists the elements of a BART analysis that a state ``must
submit'' (emphasis in original) pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), and
ELPC states that Illinois has failed to make the BART determination
based on source-specific information that EPA's regulations require.
``Rather than make a BART determination for each individual source
subject to BART that would be covered by Illinois' proposed
alternative,'' ELPC objects that the state ``simply compared projected
emissions reductions [from the adopted restrictions] to presumptive
BART emissions.'' ELPC comments that ``[b]ecause Illinois entirely
failed to use source-specific information or undertake a comprehensive
five factor analysis to determine BART, its proposed Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP) may not be approved.
    Response: The primary requirement, as specified in Clean Air Act
section 169A, is for sources to procure, install, and operate BART. In
some cases this requirement is met with an analysis of potential
controls considering five factors set out in EPA's regional haze rule
(a ``five-factor analysis''). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). As noted
above, EPA has determined that this requirement can be met by a state
establishing an alternative set of emission limits which mandate
greater reasonable progress toward visibility improvement than direct
application of BART on a source-by-source basis.
    In promulgating the 1999 regional haze regulations, EPA stated that
to demonstrate that emission reductions of an alternative program would
result in greater emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the
emission reductions that would result from the use of BART-level
controls. To do this, the State could undertake a source-specific
review of the sources in the State subject to BART, or it could use a
modified approach that simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1,
1999).
    In guidance published on October 13, 2006, EPA offered further
clarification for states for assessing alternative strategies, in
particular regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging
whether the alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612. In this rulemaking,
EPA stated in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels given in
the BART guidelines would be a suitable baseline against which to
compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been designed
to meet a requirement other than BART. 71 FR at 60619; see also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). Illinois' analysis is fully consistent with EPA's
conclusions in this rulemaking.
    Nevertheless, EPA undertook further analysis comparing Illinois'
strategy against more stringent definitions of BART. In brief, EPA
found that the alternative restrictions imposed by Illinois can be
demonstrated to provide greater emission reductions and greater
visibility improvement than even very conservative definitions of BART,
even without a full analysis of the emission levels that constitute
BART. The demonstration is discussed below, in the context of response
to comments addressing the magnitude of controls at Illinois power
plants.
    Comment: ELPC believes that the pertinent requirements in Illinois'
plan ``will not achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART.'' Furthermore, ``the MPS/CPS contains
absolutely no requirements for specific control equipment to be
installed or operated at any source subject to BART in Illinois.'' ELPC
identifies several examples of BART units that are expected to comply
with the MPS or CPS with controls that are less effective than BART-
level controls. ELPC also finds it problematic that ``requirements for
2017 for Ameren exceed presumptive BART requirements for NOX
at one of the three plants subject to BART, and far exceed presumptive
SO2 BART limits at all three (emphasis in original) Ameren
plants subject to BART.'' ELPC raises similar concerns in relation to
specified Midwest Generation (MWG) plants. For this reason, ``and
because Ameren and MWG need not meet even those weak requirements at
their plants subject to BART, the MPS/CPS is not `better' than
presumptive BART limits.''
    Response: ELPC appears to misunderstand the applicable test for
alternate strategies for addressing BART. In particular, ELPC appears
to believe that under the alternative approach, Illinois must require
BART-level controls at each unit subject to BART. In fact, the
underlying principle of EPA's guidance on alternative measures is to
offer states the flexibility to require less control at BART units than
BART-level control, provided the states provide additional control at
non-BART units that more than compensates for any degree to which
control at BART units falls short of BART. Illinois is using precisely
this flexibility. Irrespective of the degree to which control at
individual power plant BART units may be less stringent than the limits
that for those particular units would be defined as BART, Illinois is
requiring control across a universe of sources that includes many
sources that are not subject to BART, thereby providing reductions that
under EPA's rules and BART guidelines on alternative measures can
compensate for any shortfall in control at BART units.
    In response to these comments, EPA conducted further analysis of
whether Illinois' requirements, addressing a substantial number of
sources, can be expected to provide greater reasonable progress toward
visibility protection than application of BART to the more limited
number of units subject to a requirement for BART. EPA's analysis did
not rely on a full five-factor analysis of BART at each BART-subject
unit. Instead of using presumptive limits, EPA used emission limits
described in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse as being applied to new
sources. These limits, namely 0.06 pounds per million British Thermal
Units (/MMBTU) for NOX and also 0.06 /
MMBTU for SO2, are as stringent and are probably more
stringent than would generally be expected to be met at existing power
plants, due to the design constraints that are sometimes inherent in
controlling emissions at an existing facility.
    A more complete description of EPA's analysis is provided in the
technical support document being placed in the docket for this rule.
Table 1 provides a summary of the results of this analysis.

                          Table 1--Emission Reductions Mandated by Illinois' Plan and Conservative Estimates of BART Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX reductions  (tons/year)     SO2 reductions  (tons/year)
                         Company                            BART units      Total units  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                IL Plan       Lowest BART       IL Plan       Lowest BART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren..................................................               5              24          24,074          23,849         111,997          74,349
Dynegy..................................................               3              10          23,867          18,551          47,378          22,444
MWG.....................................................               9              19          37,819          28,061          61,292          38,963
CWLP....................................................               3               3           5,375           5,560           4,875           5,619
Kincaid.................................................               2               2          16,874          18,970          12,827          15,730
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................              22              58         108,009          94,991         238,369         157,105
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table shows that the reductions from Illinois' plan, including
reductions from the MPS, the CPS, and the permits for CWLP and Kincaid
Generation, provide significantly greater emission reductions,
especially for SO2 but also for NOX, than even
very conservative definitions of BART for the BART-subject units. While
Illinois' limits for the CWLP and Kincaid facilities viewed
individually are subject to limits at approximately presumptive levels,
and thus mandate less reduction than would be mandated by conservative
definitions of BART, this analysis indicates that the collective
emission reductions from Illinois power plants are greater than those
that would be achieved by requiring achievement of even very
conservative limits at the units that are subject to a BART
requirement.
    An additional point to be addressed is whether Illinois' plan,
achieving greater emission reductions overall than application of BART
on BART-subject units, can be expected also to achieve greater
visibility protection than application of BART on BART-subject units.
In general, Illinois' power plants are substantial distances from any
Class I area. The least distance from any BART-subject Illinois power
plant to any Class I area is from Dynegy's Baldwin power plant to the
Mingo Wilderness Area, a distance of about 140 kilometers. The CWLP and
Kincaid facilities are in the middle of the State; for example, Kincaid
Station is about 300 kilometers from the Mingo Wilderness Area. Given
these distances, and given that the averaging in Illinois' plan
(averaging among Illinois plants of an individual company) is only
authorized within the somewhat limited region within which each
utility's plants are located, a reallocation of emission reductions
from one plant to another is unlikely to change the impact of those
emission reductions significantly. Consequently, in these
circumstances, EPA is confident that the significantly greater emission
reductions that Illinois mandates will yield greater progress toward
visibility protection as compared to the benefits of a conservative
estimate of BART.
    Comment: ELPC comments that the ``MPS/CPS does not require that all
necessary emissions reductions take place during the first long-term
strategy for regional haze.''
    Response: EPA does not prohibit reductions after the BART
compliance deadline (in 2017); Illinois is only required to mandate at
least measures that will achieve greater reasonable progress by the
BART compliance deadline. While the MPS and the CPS establish a series
of progressively more stringent limits extending to 2017 and beyond,
both Illinois' analysis and the EPA analysis discussed above
(summarized in Table 1) evaluate satisfaction of BART requirements by
considering the emission limits in effect in 2017. The conclusion of
that analysis is that the reductions necessary to meet BART
requirements occur by the deadline for such reductions to occur. The
fact that Illinois' plan requires additional reductions after 2017 is
not a shortcoming of Illinois' plan.
    Comment: ELPC expects the affected utilities to use the reductions
mandated here to comply with CSAPR. ELPC concludes that these
reductions cannot be considered surplus and thus are not creditable for
meeting BART requirements.
    Response: Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), the alternative measures need
only be surplus to reductions from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the Clean Air Act as of the baseline date of the SIP,
i.e. 2002. (See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).) In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(e)
expressly provides that the BART requirements may be met by compliance
with a trading program of adequate stringency even without
establishment of state-specific limits. Therefore, the existence of a
trading program, and influence that the state limits have on a
utility's strategy for complying with the trading program requirements,
cannot be grounds for disapproving a state plan that satisfies
alternative BART requirements without reliance on the trading program.
    Comment: ELPC expresses a number of concerns about the BART
analysis for Kincaid Station. ELPC particularly expresses concern that
the company analyzes wet flue gas desulfurization for a scenario based
on a relatively high sulfur Illinois coal but analyzes dry sorbent
injection based on a low sulfur western coal, biasing the comparison
toward a conclusion that use of the control that is least effective at
removing SO2 nevertheless achieves the lowest emissions of
SO2.
    Response: EPA agrees that use of higher sulfur coal in the scenario
of wet flue gas desulfurization creates a mismatch in comparing this
control to the other control options. However, ELPC does not
demonstrate that a more appropriate comparison would yield a different
result. Indeed, given how much more expensive wet flue gas
desulfurization has been estimated to be for this facility as compared
to dry sorbent injection (company estimates of annualized costs of $125
million versus $25 million), EPA believes that a revised BART analysis
that used the same fuel for all scenarios, and thus achieved lower
emissions with wet flue gas desulfurization, would still show that wet
flue gas desulfurization is not cost-effective for this facility.
Therefore, EPA continues to believe that Illinois made the appropriate
BART determination for this facility.
    Comment: ELPC objects to the use of annual average limits,
expressing concern that annual average limits allow individual days of
concern to have excessive visibility impairment.
    Response: EPA's BART guidance establishes presumptive averaging
times of 30 days or shorter, but EPA also finds Illinois' limits to be
approvable. While a limit expressed as an annual average is inherently
less stringent than the same limit expressed as a 30-day average, EPA
believes that Illinois provides adequate compensation in part by
setting some limits below presumptive levels and in part by

limiting several units that are not subject to a BART requirement.
    A useful perspective is to examine the metrics by which regional
haze is evaluated. These metrics are averages of visibility across 20
percent of the days of the year, in particular across the 20 percent of
days with the worst visibility and across the 20 percent of days with
the best visibility. (See 64 FR 35734) Twenty percent of 365 days in a
year is 73 days. Furthermore, the days that have better or worse
visibility are distributed throughout the year, so that allowance of
greater variability in daily or monthly emissions would not necessarily
yield worse (or better) visibility. Thus, while a 30-day average limit
would be better suited to assuring appropriate mitigation of visibility
impairment, EPA finds Illinois' annual average limitations to be
adequately commensurate with the averaging time inherent in the
visibility metrics being addressed.
    Another facet of the use of annual rather than 30-day or shorter
averages is stringency. Given normal variability in emissions, an
annual average limitation is by definition less stringent than a 30-day
or shorter average limitation set at the same level. In some contexts,
especially those involving short-term air quality standards, EPA would
not accept an annual average limitation without a demonstration that
the limitation suffices to mandate that short-term average emission
levels must remain below some definable, adequate level. However,
different criteria are warranted in the context of regional haze, for
which the relevant emissions are the emissions on the 20 percent of
days with worst visibility and the 20 percent of days with best
visibility. Examining the stringency of the particular limitations that
Illinois has adopted, and considering degree of variability in 73-day
average emissions that might be expected with an annual average
emission limit, EPA finds that Illinois' annual average limitations are
sufficiently stringent to conclude that emissions on a 30-day average
basis can be expected to provide the visibility improvement that
Illinois is required to provide.
    Comment: ELPC comments that Illinois' long-term strategy must be
disapproved. ELPC expresses particular concern that Illinois' plan does
not mandate emission reductions for two power plants, specifically
Ameren's Joppa plant and Southern Illinois Power Company's Marion
plant, which ELPC believes must be mandated ``to achieve the reasonable
progress goals for Class I areas affected by the state.'' ELPC notes
that ``Illinois claimed that existing or soon-to-be-implemented
regulatory program''--in particular, the MPS/CPS and CSAPR--``would
require sufficient emissions reductions on the 15 most significant
sources so as to ensure achievement of reasonable progress goals in
impacted Class I areas.'' ELPC acknowledges that the Joppa Plant is
addressed to the extent that Ameren's plants are collectively limited
under the MPS, but ELPC observes that Ameren has the choice to comply
with the MPS ``without making any reductions at Joppa,'' even though
the plant has ``a Q/D ratio'' (dividing emissions by distance to the
nearest Class I area) that is ``nearly three times larger than any
other evaluated source.'' ELPC also objects that CSAPR ``also does not
ensure emission reductions at either Joppa or Marion, because (1) the
rule is under legal challenge, is currently stayed, and may never go
into effect, (2) ``does not require emission reductions at particular
plants,'' and (3) by restricting annual emissions does not necessarily
limit emissions in seasons when the most degradation in visibility may
occur.
    Response: Achievement of the applicable reasonable progress goals
is not contingent on Illinois limiting emissions from the Joppa or
Marion plants in particular. Given the distances of the sources in
Illinois from affected Class I areas, the least of which is about 120
kilometers from the Joppa plant to Mingo Wilderness Area, the impact on
visibility is primarily dependent on the total emission reductions and
not on the geographical distribution of those reductions. That is, even
if Ameren for example were to opt to control its Coffeen plant (about
240 kilometers from Mingo Wilderness Area) more than its Joppa plant,
the net effect on visibility would likely be similar.
    EPA recognizes that CSAPR is under challenge and is currently
stayed. However, Illinois is not relying on additional reductions from
CSAPR to provide its appropriate contribution toward achieving
reasonable progress in visibility protection. Therefore, the litigation
status of CSAPR is not germane to the approvability of Illinois'
regional haze plan.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Illinois' regional haze plan as satisfying the
applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.308. Most notably, EPA concludes
that Illinois has satisfied the requirements for BART in 40 CFR
51.308(e) and has adopted a long-term strategy that reduces emissions
in Illinois that, in combination with similar reductions elsewhere, EPA
expects to suffice to achieve the reasonable progress goals at Class I
areas affected by Illinois.
    In this action, EPA is also approving a set of rules and two
permits for incorporation into the state implementation plan.
Specifically, EPA is approving the following rules: Title 35 of
Illinois Administrative Code Rules 225.233 (paragraphs a, b, e, and g),
225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295, 225.296 (except paragraph d), and
225 Appendix A. While the rules provide the SO2 and
NOX limits as one of two options that the affected utilities
may choose between, EPA is incorporating into the SIP Illinois'
submittal of letters from the affected utilities choosing the option
including the SO2 and NOX limits, which under the
approved rules makes these limits permanently enforceable. Therefore,
these SO2 and NOX limits are state enforceable
and, with this SIP approval, now become federally enforceable as well.
EPA also considers the limits of the state permits and the refinery
consent decrees to be enforceable. While Illinois adopted the above
rules as part of a state rulemaking which mostly addressed mercury
emissions, the mercury provisions are not germane to this rulemaking,
Illinois did not submit the mercury-related rules, and the limited set
of rules that Illinois submitted suffice to mandate the SO2
and NOX emission controls that are pertinent to this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 Clean Air Act; 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 the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(192) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (192) On June 24, 2011, Laurel Kroack, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, submitted Illinois' regional haze plan to Cheryl
Newton, Region 5, EPA. This plan includes a long-term strategy with
emission limits for mandating emission reductions equivalent to the
reductions from implementing best available retrofit technology and
with emission reductions to provide Illinois' contribution toward
achievement of reasonable progress goals at Class I areas affected by
Illinois. The plan specifically includes regulations establishing
Multi-Pollutant Standards and Combined Pollutant Standards, along with
letters from the affected electric utilities establishing the
applicability and enforceability of the option that includes sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission limits. The plan also includes
permits establishing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission limits
for three additional electric generating plants and two consent decrees
establishing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission limits for two
refineries.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following sections of Illinois Administrative Code, Title
35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter 1:
Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission Standards and
Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 225, Control of Emissions from
Large Combustion Sources, published at 33 IL Reg 10427, effective June
26, 2009, are incorporated by reference:
    (1) Subpart B: Control Of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired
Electric Generating Units, Section 225.233 Multi-Pollutant Standards
(MPS), only subsections (a), (b), (e), and (g), Section 225.291
Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose, Section 225.292 Applicability of
the Combined Pollutant Standard, Section 225.293 Combined Pollutant
Standard: Notice of Intent, Section 225.295 Combined Pollutant
Standard: Emissions standards for NOX and SO2,
and Section 225.296 Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology
Requirements for NOX, SO2, and PM Emissions,
except for 225.296(d).
    (2) Section 225.Appendix A Specified EGUs for Purposes of the CPS
(Midwest Generation's Coal-Fired Boilers as of July 1, 2006).
    (B) Joint Construction and Operating Permit: Application Number
09090046, Issued on June 23, 2011, to City Water, Light & Power, City
of Springfield.
    (C) Joint Construction and Operating Permit: Application Number
09050022, Issued on June 24, 2011, to Kincaid Generation, LLC.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Letter from Guy Gorney, Midwest Generation to Dave Bloomberg,
Illinois EPA, dated December 27, 2007, choosing to be subject to
provisions of the Multi-Pollutant Standards that include emission
limits for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
    (B) Letter from R. Alan Kelley, Ameren, to Jim Ross, Illinois EPA,
dated December 27, 2007, choosing to be subject to provisions of the
Combined Pollutant Standards that include emission limits for sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
    (C) Letter from Keith A. McFarland, Dynegy, to Raymond Pilapil,
Illinois EPA, dated November 26, 2007, choosing to be subject to
provisions of the Combined Pollutant Standards that include emission
limits for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

[FR Doc. 2012-16557 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P