[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32297-32298]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31019; Amdt. No. 3645]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective June 8, 2015. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-
0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the

airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

* * * Effective 25 JUNE 2015

Oneonta, AL, Robbins Field, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 5, Orig-A
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS
OR LOC Rwy 22R, ILS Rwy 22R (CAT II), ILS Rwy 22R (CAT III), Amdt 2E
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale Executive, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Tallahassee, FL, Tallahassee Intl, ILS OR LOC Rwy 27, ILS Rwy 27
(CAT II), Amdt 10
Tallahassee, FL, Tallahassee Intl, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 9, Amdt 2
Tallahassee, FL, Tallahassee Intl, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 27, Amdt 2
Eastman, GA, Heart of Georgia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC Rwy 2, Amdt 2A
Eastman, GA, Heart of Georgia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 2, Amdt 2A
Homerville, GA, Homerville, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, ILS OR LOC Rwy 6L, Amdt 4
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, NDB/DME Rwy 24R, Amdt 1
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 24R, Amdt 2
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z Rwy 24R, Amdt 1
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Guam, GU, Guam Intl, VOR/DME OR TACAN Rwy 24R, Amdt 1
Camdenton, MO, Camdenton Memorial-Lake Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A
Jacksonville, NC, Albert J Ellis, ILS OR LOC Rwy 5, Amdt 9B
Manchester, NH, Manchester, RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 35, Amdt 1A
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, ILS OR LOC Rwy 28L, Amdt 4
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, ILS OR LOC Rwy 28R, Amdt 16
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, RNAV (GPS) X Rwy 28L, Amdt 3
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, RNAV (GPS) X Rwy 28R, Amdt 3
Marion, SC, Marion County, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 22, Orig-A
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, ILS OR LOC Rwy 5L, Amdt 9
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, ILS OR LOC Rwy 23L, Orig
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, ILS OR LOC Rwy 23R, ILS Rwy 23R (SA
CAT I), ILS Rwy 23R (CAT II), Amdt 13
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 5L, Amdt 2
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 5R, Amdt 2
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 23L, Amdt 2
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 23R, Amdt 2
Knoxville, TN, Mc Ghee Tyson, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
7
Pulaski, TN, Abernathy Field, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 16, Amdt 2B

* * * Effective 23 JULY 2015

Walnut Ridge, AR, Walnut Ridge Rgnl, VOR/DME Rwy 22, Amdt 13B,
CANCELED
RESCINDED: On May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29209), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31017, Amdt No. 3643, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23, and 97.33. The
following entries for Millersburg, OH, effective June 25, 2015 are
hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Millersburg, OH, Holmes County, GPS Rwy 27, Orig, CANCELED
Millersburg, OH, Holmes County, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 9, Orig
Millersburg, OH, Holmes County, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 27, Orig
Millersburg, OH, Holmes County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Millersburg, OH, Holmes County, VOR-A, Amdt 7

[FR Doc. 2015-13820 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48425-48431]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22505]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0034; FRL-9969-59-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a revision to
the Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP). Minnesota has satisfied
the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. The
progress report examines Minnesota's progress in implementing its
regional haze plan during the first half of the first implementation
period. Minnesota has met the requirements for submitting a periodic
report describing its progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze. Minnesota also provided a determination
of the adequacy of its plan in addressing regional haze with its
negative declaration submitted with the progress report. Because the
state addresses the applicable requirements, EPA is approving the
progress report and adequacy determination for the first implementation
period for regional haze as a revision to the Minnesota SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 18, 2017,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 17, 2017. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0034 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment.

The written comment is considered the official comment and should
include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies 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:

I. Background
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
Determinations
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years
that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
Federal area \1\ (Class I area). Specifically, the progress report
evaluates progress toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal
area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area
outside the state which may be affected by emissions from with the
state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the
same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308(h). The
first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the
initial regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a Class I Federal area is one
in which visibility is protected more stringently than under the
national ambient air quality standards. Class I federal area include
national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of
special national and cultural significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on December 30,
2009, with a supplement submitted on May 8, 2012. Correspondingly,
Minnesota submitted its five-year progress report and its determination
of adequacy on December 30, 2014. EPA is approving Minnesota's progress
report on the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of 40
CFR 51.308.
    Two Class I areas are located in Minnesota, the Boundary Waters
Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters) and the Voyageurs National Park
(Voyageurs). Further, Minnesota emissions contribute to visibility
impairment at a Class I area located out of state, the Isle Royale
National Park (Isle Royale) in Michigan.

II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
Determinations

    States must periodically submit a regional haze progress report
that addresses the elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are
required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) to submit, at the same time as the
progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing
regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions listed in
the rule based on information in the progress report.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    The following sections discuss the information provided in
Minnesota's progress report. Each section describes Minnesota's
progress report SIP submission and provides EPA's analysis and proposed
determination as to whether the submission meets the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
1. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP
    In general, the Regional Haze Rule features two strategies for
reducing visibility-impairing pollutants: Implementing best available
retrofit technology (BART) and the long-term strategy (LTS). In
Minnesota, BART applies to electric generating units (EGUs) and
taconite facilities.
a. BART for EGUs
    The Minnesota progress report described the implementation of
regional haze controls at EGUs. Minnesota's 2009 Regional Haze SIP
included source-specific BART determinations for subject EGUs.
Minnesota had intended to rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
EGU emissions cap and trade program, finalized on May 12, 2005 (70 FR
25162), which had been determined by EPA as ``better than BART.''
However, CAIR was remanded (without vacatur) by the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit in December 2008, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore,
Minnesota's 2009 Regional Haze SIP relied on the source-specific BART
determinations performed by the state.
    EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), effective
October 7, 2011 (76 FR 48208). Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to
begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR
program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR,
and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR
pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to
administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No.
11-1302 (December 30, 2011).
    In December 2011, EPA proposed a rule to approve CSAPR as an
alternative to determining source-by-source specific BART for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions
from power plants. 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA finalized the
rule on June 7, 2012. 77 FR 33642. Minnesota modified its EGU BART
strategy, replacing source-specific BART determinations at subject
facilities with participation in CSAPR. On January 5, 2012, Minnesota
requested to use CSAPR participation to satisfy BART for its EGUs,
which EPA approved on June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34801). EPA considers CSAPR
to satisfy the BART requirements for Minnesota EGUs for SO2
and NOX.
    On August 21, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
vacated CSAPR, keeping CAIR in effect while EPA developed a replacement
rule. EPA appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld
CSAPR in a final decision issued on April 29, 2014.\2\ On October 23,
2014, the Court of Appeals granted EPA's motion to lift the stay of
CSAPR and to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years. On
November 21, 2014, EPA issued a rule that aligns the dates in the CSAPR
rule text with the revised court-ordered schedule, including the
implementation of Phase I in 2015. 79 FR 71663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota used CSAPR to satisfy BART for its subject EGUs. The EGUs
in Minnesota, including both units subject to BART and units not
subject to BART, have reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions even with the delay in implementing CSAPR. In the progress
report, Minnesota shows that 2013 state-wide SO2 emissions
from EGUs were 24,366 tons. That is below the CSAPR budget of 41,981
tons and a 76 percent decrease

from 2002 emissions. Minnesota also shows that 2013 state-wide
NOX emissions were 24,855 tons from EGUs. That is below the
29,572 tons CSAPR budget and a 71 percent decrease from 2002 emissions.
b. BART for Taconite Facilities
    The Minnesota progress report described the implementation of
regional haze controls at taconite facilities. Minnesota's 2009
Regional Haze SIP included source-specific BART determinations for
subject taconite facilities. On February 6, 2013, EPA finalized a
Federal Implementation Plan rule (FIP) with BART determinations and
enforceable limits for Minnesota's subject taconite facilities for
control of SO2 and NOX emissions. 78 FR 8706.
    Compliance deadlines in the FIP ranged from a few months (for most
SO2 limits) to five years from the SIP's effective date of
March 8, 2013. The affected facilities, however, as well as the state
of Michigan, filed petitions for reconsideration and review of the FIP
rule. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the rule on
June 14, 2013. As of the date of Minnesota's progress report, December
30, 2014, the stay remained in effect while the parties sought to
resolve the litigation.\3\ Subsequently, the stay was lifted on
November 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA subsequently reached a settlement agreement with Cliffs
Natural Resources, Arcelor Mittal, and the state of Michigan
regarding issues raised in their petitions for review and
reconsideration. Notice of the settlement was published in the
Federal Register on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5111), and the
settlement agreement was fully executed on April 9, 2015.
    EPA granted partial reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP
based on new information raised in the petitions for
reconsideration. EPA finalized a revision to the taconite BART FIP
on April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21672). EPA revised the SO2 and
NOX emission limitations for some of the taconite
facilities based on new information that was not available when the
FIP was originally promulgated.
    However, Cliffs, Arcelor Mittal, and US Steel filed petitions
for reconsideration and review against the April 12, 2016 revised
FIP on or about June 13, 2016. This matter is also pending before
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIP provided BART limits for taconite furnaces. The delays in
implementing the taconite FIP extended beyond the period Minnesota
assessed in its progress report. In light of the stay of the FIP during
the reporting period, Minnesota did not include any expected visibility
improvements that will arise from the implementation of the FIP in its
progress report analysis. Minnesota will evaluate visibility benefits
from the taconite FIP in future regional haze plans and progress
reports.
c. Long Term Strategy
    In its progress report, Minnesota described its Northeast Minnesota
Plan, which is part of the LTS in its regional haze plan. The Northeast
Minnesota Plan applies to sources in a six-county (Carlton, Cook,
Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis counties) area in
northeastern Minnesota that emit at least 100 tons per year of either
NOX, SO2, or both. The Northeast Minnesota Plan
sets two targets from the base case for reductions in combined
NOX and SO2 emissions.
d. ``On-the-Books'' Modeled Controls
    In its progress report, Minnesota noted the additional emission
reductions expected from several Federal programs. Minnesota considered
the emission reductions from the Tier 2 Gasoline, Heavy-duty Highway
Diesel, Non-road Diesel, and a variety of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology programs in its regional haze plan. Minnesota did not rely
on additional emissions controls from other states in its regional haze
strategy. Additional emission reductions from the evaluated programs
and from other states will not delay visibility improvement and may
accelerate the improvement.
    EPA concludes that Minnesota has adequately addressed the status of
control measures in its regional haze SIP. Minnesota describes the
implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP including
the status of control measures to meet BART, reasonable progress
requirements, and the status of measures from on-the-book controls.
2. Summary of Emission Reductions Achieved in Minnesota Through
Implementation of Measures
    Minnesota provided its EGUs emissions of SO2 and
NOX for 2002, 2009, and 2013, along with its CSAPR budgets.
As discussed in III.A.1.a. of this rule, emissions of the relevant
pollutants have sharply declined from 2002 to 2013, and are all below
the CSAPR budgets.
    EPA expects further SO2 and NOX emission
reductions from EGUs and the taconite facilities as CSAPR and the
taconite FIP are implemented. Minnesota should account for these future
emission reductions in its plan for the 2018-2028 implementation
period. Minnesota will reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its
regional haze SIP when preparing its second regional haze SIP to cover
the 2018-2028 implementation period. That assessment will include its
reliance upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, implementation
of controls on its taconite facilities, and any other applicable
emission controls.

                    Table 1--Northeast Minnesota Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Target  (tons NOX    Emissions (tons NOX
                                    and SO2)              and SO2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (Base).................  95,826..............                95,826
2012........................  76,661 (20 percent                  52,691
                               reduction).
2018........................  67,078 (30 percent              \1\ 66,982
                               reduction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projection of 2018 combined emissions that adds permitted new
  sources, modifications, and potential new sources to the existing area
  sources.

    The Northeast Minnesota Plan sets a 20 percent reduction target for
2012 and a 30 percent reduction target for 2018 of combined
NOX and SO2 emissions from the 2002 base.
Minnesota reported that the 2012 combined emissions from the Northeast
Minnesota Plan sources meet the 2012 goal. Thus, Minnesota has made
adequate progress to date in achieving emission reductions.
    Although the progress report is an evaluation of the progress
achieved, there are some new sources permitted in the Northeast
Minnesota Plan area. Minnesota made a projection of 2018 combined
emissions that adds permitted new sources, modifications, and potential
new sources to the existing area sources that is less than the 2018
Northeast Minnesota Plan goal.
    EPA finds that the summary of emission reductions achieved from

control strategy implementation meets the applicable requirements.
3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory
Class I Federal Area in the State

                                  Table 2--Visibility Progress at Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Area                                   2002 (dv)       2013 (dv)       2018 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters:
    Worst.......................................................            19.9            18.9            18.6
    Best........................................................             6.4             4.8             6.4
Voyageurs:
    Worst.......................................................            19.5            18.2            18.9
    Best........................................................             7.1             5.3             7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota reported the 2013 visibility conditions for the 20
percent most impaired days (worst) and the 20 percent least impaired
days (best) at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Those values indicate
progress from the 2002 baseline toward the 2018 RPGs.
    EPA finds that Minnesota properly reported the current visibility
conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, the
difference between current conditions and baseline conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days, and the change in visibility for
the most impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
Minnesota's visibility progress is on track as improvement has been
shown for the 20 percent least impaired days and is on track for the 20
percent most impaired days at both Class I Federal areas, Boundary
Waters and Voyageurs.
4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing
Pollutants
    Minnesota provided its 2002 base emissions and projected 2018
emissions in its regional haze plan submitted in 2009. The progress
report gives 2011 annual emissions for SO2, NOX,
ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). These
emissions can be compared to the 2002 base and 2018 projected emissions
to evaluate progress.

                                           Table 3--Emissions Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SO2 (tons)      NOX (tons)      NH3 (tons)      VOC (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Emissions..................................         163,000         487,000         185,000         361,000
2011 Emissions..................................          62,100         299,000         197,000         273,000
2018 Goal.......................................         108,000         288,000         253,000         279,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota reports 2011 total SO2 emissions of 62,100
tons, lower than the 2018 goal of 108,000 tons. Minnesota noted that
SO2 emissions have been steadily declining. Point sources
comprise most of the SO2 emissions, and several projects at
coal-burning EGUs have driven the decline in SO2 emissions.
    Minnesota NOX emissions have declined to 299,000 tons in
2011, nearing the 2018 goal of 288,000. For NOX emissions,
mobile sources are the main sector, and, as such, implementation of
mobile source programs is expected to continue to decrease
NOX emissions in Minnesota. Potential emission reductions
from EGUs and taconite facilities, once implemented, will provide some
further assistance. Minnesota appears to be on track to meet its 2018
RPG for NOX emissions given the reductions already achieved
and further reductions expected because of the controls being
implemented.
    Minnesota projected its NH3 emissions to increase 37
percent from 2002 to 2018, while by 2011 NH3 emissions
increased by 6.5 percent. Minnesota noted in its report that so far
NH3 emissions are increasing at a lower rate than predicted,
but there still is some uncertainly regarding the emissions growth
rate. Non-point source, agricultural livestock manure management in
particular, are the main sector for NH3 emissions in
Minnesota.
    Minnesota projects VOC emissions to decrease 23 percent from 2002
to 279,000 tons in 2018. Minnesota reports 273,000 tons of VOC
emissions in 2011. Emissions are gradually decreasing from
implementation of a variety of programs. The state's anthropogenic VOC
emissions are mainly from mobile and non-point sources.
    Minnesota noted that direct fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions have a minimal impact on visibility in
Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. EPA examined the PM2.5
emissions inventories and found a downward trend in emissions.
    Minnesota appears to be on-track for reaching the 2018 emission
projections in its regional haze plan. EPA finds that Minnesota's
analysis tracking emissions progress for the current five-year period
has satisfied the applicable requirements.
5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions
    Minnesota provided an assessment of its SO2,
NOX, and NH3 emissions changes and of the five
contributing states (Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, and
Wisconsin).
    Minnesota reported 2011 emissions, which show a 61 percent
SO2 reduction from the 2002 base year, a 38 percent
NOX reduction, and a 6.5 percent increase in NH3
emissions.
    Iowa emissions (as indicated in its progress report) show a 37,400
ton SO2 reduction from 2002 to 2008, along with a 68,100 ton
NOX reduction. Minnesota reviewed the public comment draft
of the Missouri progress report. Missouri reported a 147,000 ton
reduction in SO2 emissions and a 53,200 ton reduction in
NOX emissions from 2005 to 2011. North Dakota provided
emission information that shows a 67,000 ton, or 38 percent,
SO2 reduction and a 51,000 ton or 22 percent NOX
reduction from 2002 to 2011. Illinois and Wisconsin

had not compiled emission data in time for Minnesota to evaluate for
the report.
    Minnesota also included emissions data from EPA's Clean Air Markets
Division that show reductions in both SO2 and NOX
emissions for each of the six states from 2005 to 2013. Collectively
for the six states, SO2 emissions declined 645,000 tons or
57 percent decrease, and there was a 293,000 ton or 53 percent decrease
in NOX emissions.
    EPA finds that Minnesota properly assessed available information
for any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions over the past
five years to determine whether these changes have impeded progress in
improving visibility. The five contributing states are in various
stages in assessing emissions for progress reports making Minnesota's
assessment of contributing states' emissions inconsistent state to
state. The visibility data available to Minnesota indicates that
visibility improvement is on track. Supplementing the data from other
states, EPA's Clean Air Markets Division data show that significant,
wide-spread SO2 and NOX emission declines have
already occurred. Thus, there is no evidence that progress in Minnesota
is being impeded by emissions from other states.
6. Assessment of Whether the SIP Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient
To Meet RPGs
    Minnesota has implemented, or expects to implement by 2018, all
controls from its approved regional haze plan. The state noted in the
progress report that its emissions are on track for the 2018 goals,
including reductions that are ahead of pace for the key visibility
impairing pollutants, SO2 and NOX. Minnesota
expects that the implementation of CSAPR and other Federal programs
will address the reasonable progress obligations of the contributing
states.
    Minnesota emissions contribute to visibility impairment at Isle
Royale. Emission reductions from Minnesota sources that help visibility
improvement at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs also support visibility
improvement at Isle Royale. Minnesota has achieved greater
SO2 emission reductions than predicted in both its own and
Michigan's regional haze plans.
    EPA finds that Minnesota has provided an assessment of the current
strategy to determine if it is sufficient to meet reasonable progress
goals at all Class I Federal areas impacted by Minnesota emissions. The
available information indicates that Minnesota is implementing its
controls. The visibility progress at both Boundary Waters and Voyageurs
is on track and thus suggests Minnesota's current strategy is
sufficient to meet its reasonable progress goals.
7. Visibility Monitoring Strategy Review
    Minnesota states in its progress report that Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites operate at the Class I
Federal areas, Boundary Waters and Voyageurs, which are in northeastern
Minnesota. There are also two IMPROVE protocol sites in southern
Minnesota operating near Blue Mounds State Park and Great River Bluffs
State Park. Minnesota will continue to operate the IMPROVE network
monitors based on Federal funding. If future reductions to the IMPROVE
network occur, the state has a contingency plan to use the
PM2.5 monitoring network. In addition, Minnesota commits to
meeting the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) for its
Class I Federal areas.
    EPA finds that Minnesota has adequately reviewed its visibility
monitoring strategy, and concurs that it appears sufficient. No
modifications to the monitoring strategy are needed at this time.

B. Determination of the Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan

    The determination of adequacy for the regional haze plan is
required to be submitted at the same time as the progress report. The
rule at 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires the state to select from four actions
based on the state's evaluation of its regional haze plan.
    Minnesota determined that its regional haze plan, including the
2012 supplement as approved into the Minnesota SIP, is adequate to meet
the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects to achieve the RPGs at
Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, and Isle Royale. Thus, Minnesota submitted
a negative declaration that further substantive revision of its
regional haze plan is not needed at this time.
    EPA finds that the current Minnesota regional haze plan is adequate
to achieve its established goals. The reported information indicates
that Minnesota is on track to meet its visibility improvement and
emission reduction goals.

C. Public Participation and Federal Land Manager Consultation

    Minnesota published a public notice in the July 28, 2014, State
Register. Minnesota offered a public meeting upon request. No one
requested a public meeting. The state provided a public comment period
of July 28, 2014, to August 27 2014, and received eight comment letters
on its action. The comment letters, along with Minnesota's responses,
are included in the progress report in Appendix F.
    Minnesota consulted with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) on June 10,
2014. It provided a draft of the progress report to FLMs on June 20,
2014. The FLM comments, along with Minnesota's responses, are included
in the progress report in Appendix F. Minnesota made revisions to the
progress report based on FLM comments.
    EPA finds that Minnesota has addressed the applicable public
participation requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the regional haze progress report that Minnesota
submitted on December 30, 2014, as a revision to the Minnesota SIP. EPA
finds that Minnesota has satisfied the progress report requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA also finds that Minnesota has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h) for a determination of the adequacy of
its regional haze plan with its negative declaration.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 18,
2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by November 17, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Relevant
public comments will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based
on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
December 18, 2017.

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 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, 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);
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 December 18, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    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.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Regional Haze Progress Report'' immediately following the
entry ``Regional Haze Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP    Applicable  geographic  submittal date/ EPA approved date         Comments
           provision             or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Progress Report.  statewide.............      12/30/2014  10/18/2017,        .....................
                                                                         [insert Federal
                                                                         Register
                                                                         citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-22505 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 67601]
[DOCID:fr29no07-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-12-000]

PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, Complainant v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Respondent; Notice of Complaint Filing

November 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 20, 2007, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule 206 of the Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, PJM Industrial Customer
Coalition (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent) alleging that certain provisions
in the Respondent's tariff, that would ``sunset'' the existing payments
for customer curtailment when locational marginal pricing exceeds a
particular threshold, currently $75/MWh, are unjust and unreasonable.
    The Complainant has requested fast track processing.
    The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served
on all potentially affected parties.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23149 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 67152-67153]
[DOCID:fr01no10-69]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63179; File No. SR-ISE-2010-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Amending Its Schedule of Fees

October 26, 2010.
    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 October 19, 2010, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this

notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule by eliminating all
fees related to its equity market. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has ceased trading equity securities in its market.
Therefore, the Exchange is now proposing to eliminate all fees related
to the trading of equity securities and its equity membership from its
Schedule of Fees. The Exchange believes that eliminating the fees
related to equities will simplify and clarify its Schedule of Fees, and
thereby avoid investor confusion by only publishing fees for products
that are traded on its market.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\4\ 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. Since the Exchange no longer trades equities in its
market, the proposed rule change will simply its Schedule of Fees by
eliminating the fees related to equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 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) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \6\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-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-2010-104 on the subject line.

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 SR-ISE-2010-104. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2010-104 and should be
submitted on or before November 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27494 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22837-22840]
[DOCID:fr15my09-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497, FRL-8905-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey
Reasonable Further Progress Plans, Reasonably Available Control
Technology, Reasonably Available Control Measures and Conformity
Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of two State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by New
Jersey that are intended to meet several Clean Air Act (Act)
requirements for attaining the 0.08 part per million (ppm) 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards. EPA is approving: the 2008
reasonable further progress plans and associated 2008 ozone projection
year emission inventories, contingency measures for the 2008 reasonable
further progress plans, 2008 conformity budgets used for planning
purposes, and the reasonably available control measure analysis. In
addition, EPA is conditionally approving New Jersey's efforts to meet
the reasonably available control technology requirement. The intended
effect of this action is to approve those programs that meet Act
requirements and to further achieve emission reductions that will be
critical to attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for
ozone in New Jersey's two nonattainment areas.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497. 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, e.g., 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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Forde<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
concerning emission inventories and reasonable further progress and
Paul Truchan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>concerning other portions of the
SIP revision, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittals?
III. What comments were received?
IV. What SIP Elements is EPA approving?
    A. Emission Inventories
    B. Reasonable Further Progress Plans
    C. Contingency Measures
    D. RACT for Stationary Sources
    E. RACM Analysis
    F. Conformity Budgets

V. What are EPA's conclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed elements of
New Jersey's comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or standard) \1\ along with other related Clean Air Act (Act)
requirements necessary to insure attainment of the standard. The EPA is
approving: the 2008 reasonable further progress (RFP) plans and
associated 2008 ozone projection emission inventories, contingency
measures for the 2008 reasonable further progress plans, 2008
conformity budgets used for planning purposes, and the reasonably
available control measure analysis, because the State of New Jersey's
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has fully addressed the
Act's requirements. In addition, EPA is conditionally approving the
RACT SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on New Jersey's March 20,
2009 adoption of the additional RACT rules it committed to adopt for 13
source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specifically noted in the action,
references to the 8-hour ozone standard are to the 0.08 ppm ozone
standard promulgated in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional details on EPA's analysis and findings the reader is
referred to the proposal published in the January 16, 2009 Federal
Register (74 FR 2945) and a more detailed discussion is contained in
the Technical Support Document which is available on line at http://
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497.

II. What was included in New Jersey's SIP submittals?

    After completing the appropriate public notice and comment
procedures, New Jersey made a series of submittals in order to address
the Act's 8-hour ozone attainment requirements. On August 1, 2007, New
Jersey submitted its RACT rules, which included a determination that
many of the RACT rules currently contained in its SIP meet the RACT
obligation for the 8-hour standard, and also included commitments to
adopt revisions to several regulations where the State identified more
stringent emission limitations that it believed should now be
considered RACT. On October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted a
comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIP for the New Jersey portions of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment areas. It included
attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP) plans for
2008 and 2009, reasonably available control measures analyses for both
areas, contingency measures, on-road motor vehicle emission budgets,
and general conformity emission budgets for McGuire Air Force Base and
Lakehurst Naval Air Station. These SIP revisions were subject to notice
and comment by the public and the State addressed the comments received
on the proposed SIPs before adopting the plans and submitting them for
EPA review and approval into the SIP. Finally, as part of the RACT
evaluation, on December 14, 2007, New Jersey submitted to EPA an
assessment of how it planned to address EPA's recently revised Control
Technique Guidelines (CTGs).

III. What comments were received?

    No comments were received on the January 16, 2009 proposal.

IV. What SIP Elements is EPA approving?

A. Emission Inventories

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by
section 172(c)(3) of the Act. For ozone nonattainment areas, the
emissions inventory must contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions because these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation. EPA previously approved New Jersey's
2002 Base Year emission inventories on July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38770). In
this rulemaking, EPA is approving the 2008 projection year emission
inventories as the State used them in developing the RFP Plans.

B. Reasonable Further Progress Plans

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Act and EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation
rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
designated moderate and above to submit an emissions inventory and RFP
Plan, for review and approval into its SIP, that describes how the area
will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOX from
a baseline emissions inventory. The RFP SIP must provide for a 15
percent emission reduction (either NOX and/or VOC)
accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year period
following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.
New Jersey's RFP Plan contains the required emission reductions that
result from adopted control measures included in the New Jersey SIP.
EPA is approving New Jersey's RFP Plans.

C. Contingency Measures

    For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above,
states must include in their submittal contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date (sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)).
Contingency measures are additional controls to be implemented in the
event the area fails to meet an RFP or attainment milestone. New
Jersey's RFP contingency plans contain sufficient emission reductions
from specific measures to satisfy EPA requirements. All the emission
reductions included in the RFP contingency plans are from adopted
measures. EPA is approving New Jersey's RFP contingency plan.

D. RACT for Stationary Sources

    Sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act require
nonattainment areas that are designated as moderate or above for ozone
to adopt RACT. All of New Jersey is subject to this requirement since
all counties in the State are located in either of two nonattainment
areas that are classified as moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone (40 CFR 81.331). The RACT submission from the
State of New Jersey consists of: (1) A certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in New Jersey's SIP for 101 source categories
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and
that they continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour ozone
implementation purposes; (2) a commitment to adopt new or more
stringent regulations that represent RACT control levels for both
specific source categories and specific sources; and (3) a negative
declaration that for certain of CTGs and/or ACTs there are no sources
within New Jersey or that there are no sources above the applicability
thresholds. EPA is conditionally approving the RACT SIP for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on New Jersey's March 20, 2009 adoption of the
additional RACT rules it committed to adopt for 13 source categories.
EPA will be taking action on these rules in a future rulemaking.

E. RACM Analysis

    Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the Act, states are required to
implement all Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) as
expeditiously as practicable. The State's analysis demonstrated that

none of the RACM's, singularly or in combination, will yield emissions
benefits sufficient to advance the 2010 attainment date for the two
nonattainment areas in which the New Jersey counties are located. EPA
is approving New Jersey's moderate area RACM SIP for the two moderate
nonattainment areas in which New Jersey is located.

F. Conformity Budgets

    Consistent with our adequacy review of New Jersey's submittal (73
FR 41068, July 17, 2008), EPA is approving New Jersey's 2008 motor
vehicle emissions budgets associated with the 2008 RFP Plans in Table
1. EPA is also approving the general conformity budgets for McGuire Air
Force Base (AFB) and Lakehurst Navel Air Station (NAS) in Table 2.

            Table 1--Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2008
                        MPO                        ---------------------
                                                       VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA (except Ocean County).......................      85.38     143.60
NJTPA (Ocean County only).........................       6.93       8.69
DVRPC.............................................      27.75      69.67
SJTPO.............................................      14.14      32.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--Approved Emission Budgets for McGuire AFB and Lakehurst NAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         VOC       NOX
                    Base                        Year    (tons/   (tons/
                                                        year)     year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGuire AFB.................................     2008      730     1,534
                                                 2009      730     1,534
                                                 2010      730     1,534
                                                 2011      730     1,534
Lakehurst NAS...............................     2008      109       563
                                                 2009      115       639
                                                 2010      122       716
                                                 2011      129       793
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What are EPA's conclusions?

    EPA is approving the following SIP elements required by the Act:
2008 RFP Plans and associated 2008 ozone projection year emission
inventories, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP Plan
milestones, 2008 emission budgets used for planning purposes, and
moderate area RACM analysis. EPA is conditionally approving the RACT
analysis for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on New Jersey having
fulfilled it's commitment to adopt RACT rules for 13 source categories
by April 1, 2009. EPA will be taking action on these rules in a future
rulemaking. If EPA approves the submittal, the RACT analysis will be
fully approved in its entirety and will replace the RACT conditionally
approved into the SIP. These revisions meet the requirements of the Act
and EPA's regulations, and are consistent with EPA's guidance and
policy. EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 and part D of
the Act and EPA's regulations.

VI. 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 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 July 14, 2009. 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
Part 52, 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 FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1582 is amended by adding new paragraph (m) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1582   Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (m)(1) The 2008 Reasonable Further Progress Plans and associated
2008 ozone projection year emission inventories for the New Jersey
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment
areas included in New Jersey's October 29, 2007 State Implementation
Plan revision are approved.
    (2) The contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP Plan
milestones for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment areas included in New Jersey's October
29, 2007 State Implementation Plan revision are approved.
    (3) The moderate area Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis
for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
MD-DE nonattainment areas included in New Jersey's October 29, 2007
State Implementation Plan revision are approved.
    (4) The 2008 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the New Jersey
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment
areas included in New Jersey's October 29, 2007 State Implementation
Plan revision are approved.
    (5) The general conformity budgets for McGuire AFB and Lakehurst
NAS included in New Jersey's October 29, 2007 State Implementation Plan
revision are approved.
    (6) The Statewide reasonably available control technology (RACT)
analysis for the 8-hour ozone included in the August 1, 2007 State
Implementation Plan revision is conditionally approved.

[FR Doc. E9-11158 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71473-71475]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29401]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63320; File No. SR-DTC-2010-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Relating to the
Requirement To Maintain a Balance Certificate in the Fast Automated
Securities Transfer Program

November 16, 2010.
    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 November 5, 2010, the Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items

have been prepared primarily by DTC.\3\ 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\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to DTC's filing, which is available at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2010-15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend DTC's rules
relating to its Fast Automated Securities Transfer (``FAST'') program
to eliminate the requirement for certain transfer agents to custody a
balance certificate.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under DTC's FAST program, DTC leaves securities in the form of
balance certificates in the custody of the transfer agent participating
in FAST (``FAST transfer agents'').\5\ The balance certificates are
registered in the name of DTC's nominee, Cede & Co. and evidence the
record ownership by Cede & Co. of each issue for which the FAST
transfer agent acts as transfer agent. The balance certificate
agreement is executed by each FAST transfer agent and DTC and sets
forth the rights and obligations of FAST transfer agents and DTC. As
additional securities are deposited or withdrawn from DTC, the FAST
transfer agent adjusts the denomination of the balance certificate as
appropriate and electronically confirms theses changes with DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FAST reduces the movement of certificates between DTC and
the transfer agent, thereby reducing the costs and risks associated
with the creation, movement, and storing of certificates. For a
description of DTC's current rules relating to FAST, see Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-13342 (March 8, 1977) (File No. SR-DTC-
76-3); 34-14997 (July 26, 1978) (File No. SR-DTC-78-11); 34-21401
(October 16, 1984) (File No. SR-DTC-84-8); 34-31941 (March 3, 1993)
(SR-DTC-92-15); and 34-46956 (December 2, 2002) (File No. SR-DTC-
2002-15). In addition, DTC has filed a proposed rule change with the
SEC to update the requirements relating to its FAST and DRS programs
(See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-57362 (February 20,
2008) (File No. SR-DTC-2006-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, FAST transfer agents have requested that DTC remove the
requirement for FAST transfer agents to custody a balance certificate
because the transfer agent electronically confirms the balance with DTC
on a daily basis. As a result, DTC is proposing to remove the
requirement that FAST transfer agents maintain a balance certificate
for certain issuers that are participating in the direct registration
system (``DRS'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DRS allows registered owners to hold their assets on the
records of the transfer agent in book-entry form rather than in
certificated form. Securities on deposit at DTC are considered ``DRS
eligible'' if the issuer's by-laws permit the issuance of book entry
shares and the CUSIP number has been designated as FAST eligible by
DTC. ``Participating in DRS'' means that the issuer and its transfer
agent have complied with DTC's requirements to participate in the
DRS program and actually allow investors to hold shares in DRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An issuer that participates in DRS has agreed to allow investors to
hold their securities position in book-entry form on the records of the
issuer's transfer agent instead of in certificated form. With DRS,
shares can be electronically transferred between a DRS Limited
Participant (i.e., a transfer agent participating in DRS) and DTC
participants (i.e., broker-dealers or banks). DRS provides investors
with an alternate approach to holding their securities either in
certificated form or in ``street'' name.\7\ As additional securities
are deposited or withdrawn from DTC, the DRS Limited Participant
adjusts the denomination of the balance certificate as appropriate and
electronically confirms these changes with DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Street name generally describes securities held in the name
of a broker-dealer or another nominee, such as a clearing agency,
instead of the broker-dealer's customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since issuers that participate in DRS have acknowledged that the
use of electronic registration of securities is a valid method to
evidence ownership of their issued securities and since electronic
registration should reduce the costs and risks associated with the
creation, storage, and replacement of balance certificates, DTC
proposes to remove the requirement that FAST transfer agents maintain a
balance certificate for those exchange listed issues that are DRS
eligible and participating in DRS. However, DTC also proposes to
continue to reserve its rights to draw down from the FAST balance and
to receive in lieu of a DRS or electronic position a certificate to be
registered in DTC's nominee name of Cede & Co. and to reflect any
number of shares up to and including the total amount of shares
outstanding due DTC from those FAST transfer agents.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it should allow
DTC to better safeguard the securities which are in DTC's custody or
control or for which it is responsible by reducing the inherent risks
associated with the transfer and maintenance of physical certificates.

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

Number SR-DTC-2010-15 on the subject line.

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 submission should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2010-15. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and
on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/nscc/2010-11.pdf. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-DTC-2010-15 and should be submitted on or before December 14, 2010.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29401 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23153-23154]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2019-29]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Uber
Elevate, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before June 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0346
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2019.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0346.
    Petitioner: Uber Elevate, Inc.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: 43.10(c)(5) and (d); 91.9(b)(2);
91.119(b) and (c); 91.121; 91.151; 91.209; 135.21(f); 135.25(a)(1) and
(2); 135.63(c) and (d); 135.65(a) and (d); 135.79(a)(1)-(3);
135.109(b); 135.149(a); 135.161(a)(1),(2), and (3); 135.209; and
135.243(b).

    Description of Relief Sought: Uber Elevate, Inc. seeks exemptions
to allow it to conduct part 119 air carrier operations for compensation
or hire under part 135 using small unmanned aircraft systems (small
UAS). Specifically, Uber Elevate, Inc. seeks permission to conduct
small UAS air carrier operations for commercial food package delivery
in the United States, initially in the City of San Diego.

[FR Doc. 2019-10593 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P