 [Federal Register: October 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 204)] [ Proposed Rules]                [Page 54767-54771] [DOCID:fr23oc09-14]

=======================================================================

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release No. 33-9074; File No. S7-23-09]

RIN 3235-AK44

  Extension of Filing Accommodation for Static Pool Information in

Filings With Respect to Asset-Backed Securities

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to amend Rule 312 of Regulation S-T

which provides a temporary filing accommodation for filings with

respect to asset-backed securities that allows static pool information

required to be disclosed in a prospectus to be provided on an Internet

Web site under certain conditions. Under Rule 312, such information is

deemed to be included in the prospectus included in the registration

statement for the asset-backed securities. Rule 312 currently applies

to filings with respect to asset-backed securities filed on or before

December 31, 2009. We propose to amend Rule 312 to extend its

application for one year. Under the proposed extension, the rule would

apply to filings with respect to asset-backed securities filed on or

before December 31, 2010.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://

www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File

Number S7-23-09 on the subject line; or

     Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (http://

www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-23-09. This file number

should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us

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/proposed.shtml). Comments

are also available for public 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. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not

edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should

submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Harrington, Attorney-Adviser,

Division of Corporation Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Securities and

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  We are proposing an amendment to Rule 312

\1\ of Regulation S-T.\2\

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

    \1\ 17 CFR 232.312.

    \2\ 17 CFR 232.10 et seq.

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

I. Background and Discussion of the Proposed Amendment

    In December, 2004, we adopted new and amended rules and forms to

address the registration, disclosure and reporting requirements for

asset-backed securities (``ABS'') under the Securities Act of 1933 \3\

(the ``Securities Act'') and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \4\

(the ``Exchange Act'').\5\ As part of this rulemaking, we adopted

Regulation AB,\6\ a new principles-based set of disclosure items

forming the basis for disclosure with respect to ABS in both Securities

Act registration statements and Exchange Act reports. Compliance with

the revised rules was phased in; full compliance with the revised rules

became effective January 1, 2006. One of the significant features of

Regulation AB is Item 1105, which requires, to the extent material,

static pool information to be provided in the prospectus included in

registration statements for ABS offerings.\7\ While the disclosure

required by Item 1105 depends on factors such as the type of underlying

asset and materiality, the information required to be disclosed can be

extensive. For example, a registrant may be required to disclose

multiple performance metrics in periodic increments for prior

securitized pools of the sponsor for the same asset type in the last

five years.\8\

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

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

    \5\ See Asset-Backed Securities, Release No. 33-8518 (December

22, 2004) [70 FR 1506] (adopting release related to Regulation AB

and other new rules and forms related to asset-backed securities)

(hereinafter, the ``Adopting Release'').

    \6\ 17 CFR 229.1100 et seq.

    \7\ See Form S-1 and Form S-3 under the Securities Act. Static

pool information indicates how groups, or static pools, of assets,

such as those originated at different intervals, are performing over

time. By presenting comparisons between originations at similar

points in the assets lives, the data allows the detection of

patterns that may not be evident from overall portfolio numbers and

thus may reveal a more informative picture of material elements of

portfolio performance and risk.

    \8\ 17 CFR 229.1105.

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

    As described in the Adopting Release, in response to the

Commission's proposal to require material static pool information in

prospectuses for ABS offerings, many commenters representing both

asset-backed issuers and investors requested flexibility in the

presentation of such information. In particular, commenters noted that

the required static pool information could include a significant amount

of statistical information that would be difficult to file

electronically on EDGAR as it existed at that time and difficult for

investors to use in that format. Commenters accordingly requested the

flexibility for asset-backed issuers to provide static pool information

on an Internet Web site rather than as part of an EDGAR filing.\9\ In

response to these comments, we adopted Rule 312 of Regulation S-T,

which permits, but does not require, the posting of the static pool

information required by Item 1105 on an Internet Web site under the

conditions set forth in the rule.\10\ We recognized at the time that a

Web-based approach might allow for the provision of the required

information in a more efficient, dynamic and useful format than was

currently feasible on the EDGAR system. At the same time, we explained

that we continued to believe at some point for future transactions the

information should also be submitted with the Commission in some

fashion, provided investors continue to receive the information in the

form they have requested. Accordingly, we adopted Rule 312 as a

temporary filing accommodation applicable to filings filed on or before

December 31, 2009.\11\ We explained that we were directing our staff to

consult with the EDGAR contractor, EDGAR filing agents, issuers,

investors and other market participants to consider how static pool

information could be filed with the Commission in a cost-effective

manner without undue burden or expense that still allows issuers to

provide the information in a desirable format. We also noted, however,

that it might be necessary, among other things, to extend the

accommodation.\12\

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

    \9\ See Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.

    \10\ 17 CFR 232.312(a). Instead of relying on Rule 312, an

issuer can include information required by Item 1105 of Regulation

AB physically in the prospectus or, if permitted, through

incorporation by reference from an Exchange Act report.

    \11\ 17 CFR 232.312(a); see also Adopting Release, Section

III.B.4.b.

    \12\ Adopting Release, Section III.B.4.b.

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

    We are proposing to extend the temporary filing accommodation set

forth in Rule 312 of Regulation S-T for one year so that it would apply

to filings with respect to ABS filed on or before December 31, 2010.

During the proposed extension, the existing requirements of Rule 312

would continue to apply. Pursuant to these requirements, the registrant

must disclose its intention to provide static pool information through

a Web site in the prospectus included in the registration statement at

the time of effectiveness and provide the specific Internet address

where the static pool information is posted in the prospectus filed

pursuant to Rule 424.\13\ The registrant must maintain such information

on the Web site unrestricted and free of charge for a period of not

less than five years, indicate the date of any updates or changes to

the information, undertake to provide any person without charge, upon

request, a copy of the information as of the date of the prospectus if

a subsequent update or change is made to the information and retain all

versions of the information provided on the Web site for a period of

not less than five years in a form that permits delivery to an investor

or the Commission. In addition, the registration statement for the ABS

must contain an undertaking pursuant to Item 512(l) of Regulation S-K

\14\ that the information provided on the Web site pursuant to Rule 312

is deemed to be part of the prospectus included in the registration

statement.\15\

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

    \13\ 17 CFR 230.424.

    \14\ 17 CFR 229.512(l).

    \15\ 17 CFR 232.312. As we indicated in the Adopting Release, if

the conditions of Rule 312 are satisfied, then the information will

be deemed to be part of the prospectus included in the registration

statement and thus subject to all liability provisions applicable to

prospectuses and registration statements, including Section 11 of

the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77k]. Adopting Release, Section

III.B.4.b.

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

    We believe that it is appropriate to extend the filing

accommodation provided by Rule 312 before its expiration after December

31, 2009. Based on the staff's experience since Rule 312 became

effective in 2006, the vast majority of residential mortgage-backed

security issuers and a significant portion of ABS issuers in other

asset classes have relied on the accommodation provided by the rule to

disclose static pool information on an Internet Web site. Furthermore,

we believe that it remains the case that it could be difficult to file

the information electronically on EDGAR as it exists today and

difficult for investors to use in that format.

    Since the adoption of Rule 312 in December, 2004, technological

advances and expanded use of the Internet have enabled the Commission

to adopt additional rules incorporating electronic communications. The

Commission continues to recognize that, in certain circumstances and

under certain conditions, the Internet can present a reliable and cost-

effective alternative or supplement to traditional disclosure

methods.\16\ On the other hand, we are mindful of the benefit of having

information filed on the EDGAR system.

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

    \16\ See, e.g., Internet Availability of Proxy Materials,

Release No. 34-55146 (Jan. 22, 2007) [72 FR 4148] (adopting release

for voluntary E-Proxy rules) and Internet Availability of Proxy

Materials, Release No. 34-52926 (December 8, 2005) [70 FR 74598]

(proposing release for voluntary E-Proxy rules). See also Enhanced

Disclosure and New Prospectus Delivery Option for Registered Open-

End Management Investment Companies, Release No. 33-8998, Section

III.A.4.c (Jan. 13, 2009) [74 FR 4546] (adopting Item 11(g)(2) of

Form N-1A under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-1

et seq.] which allows exchange-traded funds to provide premium/

discount information on a Web site rather than in a prospectus or

annual report) and Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591,

Section VI.B.1 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722] (adopting ``access

equals delivery'' model for final prospectus delivery).

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

    The staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is currently

engaged in a broad review of the Commission's regulation of ABS

including disclosure, offering process, and reporting of asset-backed

issuers. Along with this review, the staff of the Division of

Corporation Finance is continuing to explore whether a filing mechanism

for static pool information that fulfills the objectives identified

above is feasible. As the staff considers this issue further, we

believe it is appropriate to extend the temporary filing accommodation

for one year. We believe a proposal for a long-term solution for

providing static pool disclosure would be better considered together

with other possible proposals to revise the regulations governing the

offer and sale of ABS. The proposed one-year extension of Rule 312 is

intended to provide time to enable us to proceed in this manner.

    We are soliciting comments in this release about current practice

and potential alternatives for providing static pool disclosure and

will consider the responses we receive in determining whether to extend

Rule 312 or to address the issue more broadly as part of a package of

ABS proposals.

Request for Comment

    We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments

regarding the proposed amendment described above. In particular, we

solicit comment on the following questions:

     Is an extension of the filing accommodation appropriate?

What would be the consequences if the accommodation lapsed on December

31, 2009 and static pool information was required in an EDGAR filing

beginning January 1, 2010?

     How could static pool information be filed with the

Commission in a cost-effective manner that continues to allow the

information to be provided in a format that promotes utility and

functionality? Are there alternative filing mechanisms that could

replace or supplement Rule 312?

     Have investors or other market participants had any

difficulties with locating, accessing, viewing or analyzing static pool

information posted on an Internet Web site pursuant to the filing

accommodation provided by Rule 312 of Regulation S-T? Has the

information remained on the Web site for the required duration and have

updates and changes been appropriately reflected?

     Have issuers found that the Internet Web site posting

accommodation provided by Rule 312 has enabled them to provide the

required static pool information in a cost-effective, efficient and

useful manner? Have issuers encountered any issues or problems with

Internet Web site posting pursuant to Rule 312? How should we address

those issues or problems?

     Would the proposed one-year extension present particular

problems for investors? Would a shorter or more narrowly tailored

extension ameliorate those concerns?

     Should the filing accommodation be extended for longer

than one year, for example, two, three or five years, or made

permanent? If so, are there any revisions to the rule that should be

made?

     Are there any other changes we should consider making to

Rule 312 of Regulation S-T?

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Rule 312 of Regulation S-T was adopted along with other new and

amended rules and forms to address the registration, disclosure and

reporting requirements for ABS under the Securities Act and the

Exchange Act. In connection with this prior rulemaking, we submitted a

request for approval of the ``collection of information'' requirements

contained in the amendments and rules to the Office of Management and

Budget (``OMB'') in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(``PRA'').\17\ OMB approved these requirements.\18\

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

    \17\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    \18\ The collections of information to which Rule 312 of

Regulation S-T relates from ``Form S-1'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0065)

and ``Form S-3'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0073).

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

    Item 1105 of Regulation AB \19\ requires certain static pool

information, to the extent material, to be provided in prospectuses

included in registration statements for ABS offerings.\20\ Rule 312 is

a temporary filing accommodation that permits the posting of the static

pool information required by Item 1105 on an Internet Web site under

the conditions set forth in the rule.\21\ The proposed amendment to

Rule 312 extends the existing temporary filing accommodation provided

by the rule for one additional year. As is the case today, issuers may

choose whether or not to take advantage of the accommodation. The

conditions of Rule 312 remain otherwise unchanged. The disclosure

requirements themselves, which are contained in Forms S-1 and S-3 under

the Securities Act and require the provision of the information set

forth in Item 1105 of Regulation AB, also remain unchanged. Therefore,

the proposed amendment, if adopted, will not result in an increase or

decrease in the costs and burdens imposed by the ``collection of

information'' requirements previously approved by the OMB.

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

    \19\ 17 CFR 229.1105.

    \20\ See Form S-1 and Form S-3 under the Securities Act.

    \21\ 17 CFR 232.312(a).

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

III. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    In this section, we examine the benefits and costs of our proposed

amendment. We request that commenters provide views and supporting

information as to the benefits and costs associated with the

proposal. We seek estimates of these costs and benefits, as well as any

costs and benefits not already identified.

A. Benefits

    We adopted the filing accommodation provided by Rule 312 of

Regulation S-T because commenters requested flexibility in the

presentation of required static pool information. Given the large

amount of statistical information involved, commenters argued for a

Web-based approach that would allow issuers to present the information

in an efficient manner and with greater functionality and utility than

might be available if an EDGAR filing was required. We believe this

greater functionality and utility has enhanced an investor's ability to

access and analyze the static pool information and also removed the

burden on issuers of duplicating the information in each prospectus as

well as easing the burdens of updating such information.\22\ As we

discussed in the Adopting Release, since the information is deemed to

be part of the prospectus included in the registration statement, the

rule is designed to give investors access to accurate and reliable

information.

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

    \22\ See Section I above and Adopting Release, Section V.D.

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

    By extending the accommodation provided by Rule 312, these benefits

to both issuers and investors would continue to apply. As discussed

above, many ABS issuers rely on Rule 312 to provide static pool

information on an Internet Web site rather than in an EDGAR filing.\23\

We do not believe we can implement an alternative filing mechanism by

the end of 2009 that would meet the objectives of both issuers and

investors to present static pool information in an efficient, cost-

effective form that would provide investors utility and functionality

in terms of accessing and analyzing that information. Therefore, if we

do not amend Rule 312 to extend its application, static pool

information would be required in EDGAR filings beginning on January 1,

2010. We believe this would result in costs for issuers as they attempt

to adjust their procedures in a short period of time in order to

present the information in a format acceptable to the EDGAR system and

could result in costs to investors if the information filed on EDGAR

was presented in a less useful format.

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

    \23\ See Section I above.

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

    By extending Rule 312, we seek to avoid these potentially negative

effects for issuers and investors as we continue to explore the best

format in which to require the filing of static pool information. As

indicated above, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is

considering this issue along with other proposals addressing the

disclosure, offering process and reporting of asset-backed issuers.

B. Costs

    We do not believe a one-year extension of the Rule 312

accommodation would impose any new or increased costs on issuers. In

the Cost-Benefit Analysis section of the Adopting Release, we noted

that asset-backed issuers electing the Web-based accommodation provided

by Rule 312 would incur costs related to the maintenance and retention

of static pool information posted on a Web site and might also incur

start-up costs.\24\ While it is likely that certain of those costs

would continue to impact asset-backed issuers that elect the Web-based

approach during the extension period, we do not believe our proposed

amendment would impose any new or increased costs for asset-backed

issuers because it does not change any other conditions to the

accommodation or the underlying filing and disclosure obligations. As a

result of the proposed extension of the accommodation, asset-backed

issuers would be able to continue their current practices for an

additional year.

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

    \24\ See Adopting Release, Section V.D.

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

    For investors, there may be costs associated with the static pool

information not being electronically filed with the Commission. For

example, when information is electronically filed with the Commission,

investors and staff can access the information from a single,

centralized location, the EDGAR Web site. We think these costs are

mitigated by the fact that ABS issuers relying on the Rule 312

accommodation must ensure that the prospectus for the offering contains

the Internet Web site address where the static pool information is

posted, the Web site must be unrestricted and free of charge, such

information must remain on the Internet Web site for five years with

any changes clearly indicated and the issuer must undertake to provide

the information to any person free of charge, upon request, if a

subsequent update or change is made. Furthermore, because the

information is deemed included in the prospectus under Rule 312, it is

subject to all liability provisions applicable to prospectuses and

registration statements.

    Investors and issuers may have incurred costs to adjust their

processes in anticipation of the lapse of the Rule 312 accommodation

and potential reversion to a requirement to file static pool

information on EDGAR. In this case, benefits to investors or issuers of

not having to change their procedures regarding static pool reporting

in a short time frame would be diminished by any costs already incurred

in anticipation of the change. We believe such anticipatory action and

any associated costs are minimal.

    We request comment on the amount of any additional costs issuers or

investors may incur as a result of the proposed amendment.

IV. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, or ``SBREFA,'' \25\ we solicit data to determine whether

the proposal constitutes a major rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is

considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or is likely to

result in:

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

    \25\ 5 U.S.C. 603.

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

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more

(either in the form of an increase or a decrease);

     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or

individual industries; or

     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment or

innovation.

    We request comment on the potential impact of the proposed

amendment on the U.S. economy on an annual basis, any potential

increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, and

any potential effect on competition, investment or innovation.

Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual

support for their views if possible.

V. Consideration of Impact on the Economy, Burden on Competition and

Promotion of Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation

    Section 2(b) of the Securities Act requires us, when engaging in

rulemaking where we are required to consider or determine whether an

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to also

consider whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and

capital formation.

    As discussed in greater detail above, Rule 312 of Regulation S-T

was adopted as a temporary filing accommodation so that issuers of ABS

could present static pool information on an Internet Web site. The

proposed amendment to Rule 312 of Regulation S-T extends its

application for one year. We are not proposing changes to the

conditions of Rule 312 or to the disclosure obligations

to which it applies. We do not believe that a one-year extension would

impose a burden on competition. We also believe the extension of the

filing accommodation would continue to promote efficiency and capital

formation by permitting ABS issuers to disclose static pool information

in a format that is more useful to investors and cost-effective and not

unduly burdensome for asset-backed issuers.

    We request comment on whether the proposed amendment, if adopted,

would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual

support for their view to the extent possible.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Certification

    The Commission hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that

the proposed amendment contained in this release, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The proposal relates to the disclosure requirements for ABS

in Securities Act registration statements. Securities Act Rule 157 \26\

defines an issuer, other than an investment company, to be a ``small

business'' or ``small organization'' if it had total assets of $5

million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal year. In

2004, when we proposed the new and amended rules and forms to address

the registration, disclosure and reporting requirements for ABS, we

certified that the proposals would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. As the depositor and

issuing entity are most often limited purpose entities in an ABS

transaction, we focused on the sponsor in analyzing the potential

impact of the proposals under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The staff

analyzed sponsors that conducted registered public offerings of ABS

during 2003. No sponsor had total assets of $5 million or less.\27\

Based on staff experience, we continue to believe that few, if any,

sponsors are small entities. In addition, even if some sponsors are

small entities, the proposed amendment to Rule 312 would not have a

significant economic impact on any such entities because it only

extends a temporary filing accommodation that is currently in effect.

As discussed above in Section III, we do not believe the proposed

extension would impose any new or increased costs on ABS issuers.

Accordingly, we do not believe that the extension, if adopted, would

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

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

    \26\ 17 CFR 230.157.

    \27\ Asset-Backed Securities, Release No. 33-8419 (May 3, 2004)

[69 FR 26650] (proposing release related to Regulation AB and other

new rules and forms related to asset-backed securities).

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

    We solicit written comments regarding this certification. We

request comment on whether the proposals could have an effect that we

have not considered. We request that commenters describe the nature of

any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the

extent of the impact.

VII. Statutory Authority and Text of the Proposed Amendment

    The amendment described is being proposed under the authority set

forth in Sections 6, 7, 10, 19 and 28 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15

U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77j, 77s and 77z-3).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Proposed Amendment

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to

amend title 17, chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR

ELECTRONIC FILINGS

    1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read, in part,

as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,

77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),

80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.

* * * * *

Sec.  232.312  [Amended]

    2. Amend Sec.  232.312 by removing ``December 31, 2009'' and in its

place adding ``December 31, 2010'' in the first sentence of paragraph

(a).

* * * * *

    Dated: October 19, 2009.

    By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-25496 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29696-29698]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13571]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0557; FRL-9979-92-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; SC; VOC Definition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The revision makes a modification to the definition of
``volatile organic compounds'' (VOC). EPA is approving the SIP revision
submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) on September 5,
2017, because the State has demonstrated that these changes are
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective July 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0557. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Wong can be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69298), EPA issued a final rule
revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by adding tertiary
butyl acetate (or t-Butyl acetate or TBAC) to the list of compounds
that are considered to be negligibly reactive and excluded from the
definition of VOC. Additionally, on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339), EPA
issued a final rule further revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s) by removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-
Butyl acetate. EPA removed these requirements in part because there was
no evidence that TBAC was being used at levels that cause concern for
ozone formation and because the data that had been collected under
these requirements had proven to be of limited utility in judging the
cumulative impacts of exempted compounds.\1\ See 81 FR 9339, 9341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the 2016 EPA rule, EPA also discussed the efforts
surrounding any future determinations about the health risks
associated with TBAC, including noting that data collected through
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements did not appear relevant
to any such future determinations and that EPA was assessing the
health risks from TBAC through its Integrated Risk Information
System. This effort is on-going and more information regarding
health risks may be found at EPA's previous 2016 rulemaking (81 FR
9339, 9341).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6822), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for changes to the South Carolina SIP,
submitted by the South Carolina DHEC on September 5, 2017. The
submission revises South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1--Definitions and
General Requirements, specifically Section I--``Definitions,'' by
removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical
dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate.
EPA received one adverse comment in the proposed rulemaking. After
considering the adverse comment, EPA is now taking final action to
approve the South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--
``Definitions'' revision. For more information, see the February 15,
2018, NPRM.

II. Response to Comment

    Comment: EPA received one adverse comment to the revision to
Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--``Definitions.'' The Commenter asserted
that air quality policy should be based on no negative impacts on
health, and as a result, stated, ``This proposed revision would do the
opposite because it fails to acknowledge the change in emissions that
South Carolina could undertake after tert-butyl acetate (TBAc) is taken
off the states list of volatile organic compounds. I reject this
revision because EPA's logic for approval is flawed when they say, ``.
. . There was no evidence that TBAc was being used at levels that cause
concern for ozone formation . . .''. The Commenter expressed concerns
that the use of TBAC could change in South Carolina, and since record
keeping and monitoring will no longer be required, this impact will not
be assessed. Because of these concerns, the Commenter recommended that
EPA prohibit South Carolina from adding TBAC to the negligibly reactive
list and require South Carolina to continue monitoring TBAC. Finally,
the Commenter noted health effects of TBAC.
    Response: EPA previously approved South Carolina's revision of its
definition of VOC which added t-Butyl acetate to the list of negligibly
reactive compounds that are excluded from the State's definition of
VOC. 72 FR 30704 (June 4, 2007). That prior rulemaking action is final
and is not reopened in the current rulemaking action. Similarly, EPA's
prior 2004 (60 FR 69298) final rulemaking that revised the definition
of VOC to exclude TBAC as a negligibly reactive compound and EPA's 2016
(81 FR 9339) final rulemaking that removed TBAC recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory
requirements for TBAC are also not reopened in the current rulemaking
action. Rather, in the current action, the State is merely

updating the SIP to remove the recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC consistent with EPA's
2016 rulemaking and the federal definitions in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
    With regard to health risks, EPA acknowledges the comment regarding
the health effects associated with TBAC and is continuing to take steps
to assess potential risks associated with this compound. In the 2016
EPA rule, EPA discussed the efforts surrounding any future
determinations about the health risks associated with TBAC, including
noting that data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements did not appear relevant to any such future determinations
and that EPA was assessing the health risks from TBAC through its
Integrated Risk Information System. This effort is ongoing, and we
refer the Commenter to EPA's previous 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 9339,
9341) for more information regarding health risks.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I--``Definitions,'' effective
August 25, 2017, which revises definitions applicable to the SIP. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State's
implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is approving the
aforementioned change to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on September
5, 2017, because it is consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final action for the State of South Carolina does
not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial
direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation
Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' EPA notes this action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. 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, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(c) is amended by revising the entry under Regulation
No. 62.1 for ``Section I'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                              Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section I........................  Definitions........       8/25/2017  6/26/2018, [Insert
                                                                         citation of
                                                                         publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13571 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76302-76304]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31131]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0395; FRL-9499-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the
Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking several related actions affecting Lake and
Porter Counties and the State of Indiana for the 1997 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA is approving a request from the State
of Indiana for the redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA is
approving, as a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-
Indiana (IL-IN) PM2.5 nonattainment area (Greater Chicago
nonattainment area) through 2025. EPA is also approving Indiana's 2025
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs). Finally, EPA is approving Indiana's 2005
NOX, primary PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions inventories for Lake and Porter Counties.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0395. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://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 at http://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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region
5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, 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: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this rule?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What actions is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this rule?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA promulgated an annual
PM2.5 standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) of ambient air, based on the three-year average of the
annual mean PM2.5 concentration at any monitor (1997 annual
PM2.5 standard). On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ (2006
annual PM2.5 standard). However, in response to legal
challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit) remanded the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard to EPA for
further consideration. EPA has retained and continues to enforce the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published air quality area
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air
quality data for calendar 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA designated
the Greater Chicago area, which includes Lake and Porter Counties in
Indiana, as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard.
    On April 3, 2008, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for EPA approval of a
redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard. This

redesignation request is based on 2004-2007 monitoring data showing
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. On March 6,
2009, IDEM submitted a technical addendum to the April 3, 2008,
PM2.5 redesignation request to show that the Greater Chicago
nonattainment area continued to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard through 2008.
    On November 27, 2009 (74 FR 62243), EPA made a final determination
that the Greater Chicago nonattainment area was attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
    On May 26, 2011, IDEM submitted a revised PM2.5
maintenance plan to EPA demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in Lake and Porter Counties through 2025. In
this submittal, the State included additional air quality data showing
continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in
the Greater Chicago area during 2008-2010.
    On September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59600), EPA issued a notice of
rulemaking proposing to approve Indiana's request to redesignate Lake
and Porter Counties to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. This notice of rulemaking also proposed to approve Indiana's
PM2.5 maintenance plan for Lake and Porter Counties, as
revised in Indiana's May 26, 2011, submittal, 2005 NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emission inventories for
Lake and Porter Counties, and 2025 NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs for Lake and Porter Counties.
    The primary background for today's actions is contained in EPA's
September 27, 2011, proposal to approve Indiana's redesignation
request, and in EPA's November 27, 2009, final determination that the
Greater Chicago area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. In particular, the September 27, 2011, proposed rulemaking
provides a detailed discussion of how Indiana's PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on October
27, 2011. No comments were received regarding the September 27, 2011,
proposed rule.

III. What actions is EPA taking?

    After reviewing Indiana's redesignation request, EPA has determined
that it meets the criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving the redesignation of Lake and Porter
Counties to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
EPA is also approving Indiana's PM2.5 maintenance plan for
Lake and Porter Counties as a revision of the Indiana SIP based on
Indiana's demonstration that the plan meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the 2005 NOX,
SO2, and PM2.5 emission inventories for Lake and
Porter Counties as meeting the requirement for emission inventories
contained in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also finds
adequate and is approving the State's 2025 NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for Lake and Porter Counties for purposes of
future transportation conformity analyses and demonstrations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA 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 CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely do not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law and the CAA. For that reason, these
actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Do 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 6, 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

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 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 P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraphs (v)(4) and (w)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (4) The Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN nonattainment area (Lake
and Porter Counties), as submitted on April 3, 2008, and supplemented
on March 6, 2009. The maintenance plan establishes 2025 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for Lake and Porter Counties of 2,915.19 tons per
year for NOX and 132.70 tons per year for primary
PM2.5.
    (w) * * *
    (4) Indiana's 2005 NOX, primary PM2.5, and
SO2 emissions inventory satisfies the emission inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for Lake and
Porter Counties.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, IL-IN in the table entitled ``Indiana PM2.5
(Annual NAAQS)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                             Indiana--PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation \1\
        Designated area        -----------------------------------------
                                     Date \2\               Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-   February 6, 2012.  Attainment.
 IN:
    Lake County
    Porter County.............

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-31131 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 20, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1999-5007

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN) filed 10/2/06 for:

XX Renewal of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between points in the United States, via points in Fiji and New Zealand,
and Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, and Perth, Australia, and
beyond to Adelaide and to points in New Zealand.

Applicant rep: Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst: Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: November 20, 2006, through
November 20, 2008, or until 90 days after final Department action on
American’s corresponding application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity in Docket OST-2000-8516, whichever occurs
earlier.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreements
between the United States and Australia, the United States and Fiji, and
the United States and New Zealand.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/2006

 American states that it uses this authority to engage in code-sharing
services with Qantas Airways Ltd. (Qantas).  Qantas holds an undocketed
statement of authorization (of indefinite duration) approving the
American/Qantas code-share operations, dated February 10, 1999, subject
to the conditions stated therein.

 We note that the aviation agreement between the United States and
Australia authorizes local passenger traffic rights only between certain
Australian points and New Zealand.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76152-76153]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14154-001]

William Arkoosh; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14154-001.
    c. Date Filed: November 15, 2011.
    d. Applicant: William Arkoosh.
    e. Name of Project: Little Wood River Ranch II.
    f. Location: On the Little Wood River, six miles west of the Town
of Shoshone, Lincoln County, Idaho. The project would occupy
approximately 0.5 acre of federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: William Arkoosh, 2005 Highway 26, Gooding,
Idaho 83330. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific studyshould be conducted in order to form
an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on
its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must filea
request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the
date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on
the applicant.
    l. Deadline for Filing Additional Study Requests and Requests for
Cooperating Agency Status: January 14, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Little Wood River Ranch II Project Consists of: (1) A 220-
foot-long, 12-foot-wide rock rubble diversion dam, impounding a 9.1-
acre reservoir on the Little Wood River; (2) a 3,900-foot-long feeder
canal; (3) a concrete intake structure having two parallel 5-foot-
diameter, 120-foot-long steel penstocks; (4) a 60-foot-long, 20-foot-
wide, 25-foot-high concrete and steel power house containing two
hydraulic Francis

turbines with a total installed capacity of 1,230 kilowatts; (5) a
1,600-foot-long tailrace canal; (6) a 2.2-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt
transmission line; (7) an access road; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Idaho
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at 800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate (e.g., if scoping is waived, the
schedule would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency Letter................  December 2011.
Issue Notice of Acceptance.............  February 2012.
Issue Scoping Document.................  February 2012.
Issue notice of ready for environmental  April. 2012
 analysis.
Commission issues EA...................  August 2012.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31211 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P