[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61954-61956]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8201]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Date certain  federal
         State and location             Community   Effective date authorization/cancellation   Current effective map date       assistance no longer
                                           No.       of sale of flood  insurance in community                                     available in SFHAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Region IV

South Carolina:
    Marion, City of, Marion County..        450142  March 4, 1974, Emerg; May 4, 1987, Reg;    Oct. 18, 2011...............  Oct. 18, 2011.
                                                     October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Marion County, Unincorporated           450141  July 22, 1985, Emerg; June 18, 1990, Reg;  ......*do...................   Do.
     Areas.                                          October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Mullins, City of, Marion County.        450143  August 4, 1975, Emerg; June 3, 1986, Reg;  ......do....................   Do.
                                                     October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Nichols, Town of, Marion County.        450144  July 21, 1975, Emerg; September 15, 1999,  ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Sellers, Town of, Marion County.        450145  April 26, 1995, Emerg; April 1, 2002,      ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.

              Region V

Michigan:
    Alma, City of, Gratiot County...        260083  December 26, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1982,   ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    St. Louis, City of, Gratiot             260085  July 31, 1975, Emerg; January 18, 1989,    ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
Ohio:
    Holmes County, Unincorporated           390276  October 25, 1977, Emerg; December 15,      ......do....................   Do.
     Areas.                                          1990, Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Killbuck, Village of, Holmes            390279  August 27, 1975, Emerg; February 5, 1986,  ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.

             Region VII

Iowa:
    Bonaparte, City of, Van Buren           190266  January 14, 1976, Emerg; July 2, 1987,     ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Cascade, City of, Dubuque County        190117  November 20, 1975, Emerg; April 2, 1979,   ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Dubuque, City of, Dubuque County        195180  May 15, 1970, Emerg; April 2, 1971, Reg;   ......do....................   Do.
                                                     October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Dubuque County, Unincorporated          190534  May 24, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1983,    ......do....................   Do.
     Areas.                                          Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Durango, City of, Dubuque County        190119  April 10, 1974, Emerg; July 16, 1981,      ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Dyersville, City of, Dubuque            190120  December 29, 1972, Emerg; December 1,      ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         1977, Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Epworth, City of, Dubuque County        190576  August 4, 1976, Emerg; July 12, 1977,      ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Farmington, City of, Van Buren          190267  June 19, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1987, Reg;  ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Keosauqua, City of, Van Buren           190268  January 14, 1975, Emerg; September 5,      ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         1979, Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Sageville, City of, Dubuque             190122  November 20, 1974, Emerg; June 15, 1984,   ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Van Buren County, Unincorporated        190265  N/A, Emerg; February 11, 1998, Reg;        ......do....................   Do.
     Areas.                                          October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Worthington, City of, Dubuque           190123  August 7, 1975, Emerg; October 18, 1983,   ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
Missouri:
    Berger, City of, Franklin County        290132  October 7, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1982,     ......do....................   Do.
                                                     Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    New Haven, City of, Franklin            290133  January 16, 1976, Emerg; February 18,      ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         1981, Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Sullivan, City of, Franklin             290136  August 8, 1974, Emerg; June 15, 1981,      ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Washington, City of, Franklin           290138  March 20, 1975, Emerg; November 3, 1982,   ......do....................   Do.
     County.                                         Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.

             Region VIII

Montana:
    Livingston, City of, Park County        300051  May 12, 1975, Emerg; May 19, 1987, Reg;    ......do....................   Do.
                                                     October 18, 2011, Susp.
    Park County, Unincorporated             300160  July 6, 1976, Emerg; January 1, 1987,      ......do....................   Do.
     Areas.                                          Reg; October 18, 2011, Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25871 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51082-51084]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65108; File No. SR-ISE-2011-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend ISE Rule 2128

August 11, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 10, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 by
the self-regulatory organization. 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 Rule 2128, governing clearly
erroneous executions, so that the rule will continue to operate in the
same manner after changes to the single stock trading pause process are
effective.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    The Exchanges \3\ and FINRA, in consultation with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), have made changes to their
respective rules in a concerted effort to strengthen the markets after
the severe market disruption that occurred on May 6, 2010. One such
effort by the Exchanges and FINRA was to adopt a uniform trading pause
process during periods of extraordinary market volatility as a pilot in
S&P 500[supreg] Index stocks (``Pause Pilot''), approved by the
Commission on June 10, 2010.\4\ On September 10, 2010, the Commission
approved the Exchanges' and FINRA's proposals to add the securities
included in the Russell 1000 Index and specified ETPs to the Pause
Pilot.\5\ On September 10, 2010, the Commission also approved changes
proposed by the Exchanges to amend certain of their respective rules to
set forth clearer standards and curtail their discretion with respect
to breaking erroneous trades.\6\ The changes, among other things,
provided uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in
the event of transactions that result in the issuance of an individual
stock trading pause pursuant to the Pause Pilot on the listing market
and those that occur up to the time the trading pause message is
received by the other markets from the single plan processor
responsible for consolidation and dissemination of information for the
security (``Latency Trades'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this filing, the term ``Exchanges'' refers
collectively to BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc.,
National Stock Exchange, Inc. and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-
EDGA-2010-01; SR-EDGX- 2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE- 2010-48; SR-
NYSE-2010-39; SR- NYSEAmex- 2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41; SR-NASDAQ-
2010-061; SR- CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; and SR-CBOE-2010-047);
62251 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-
025).
    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) (File Nos.
SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044; SR- CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14;
SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05; SR- ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-
079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-2010- 63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and
SR-NSX-2010-08); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62883
(September 10, 2010),75 FR 56608 (September 16, 2010) (SR- FINRA-
2010-033).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 16
[sic], 2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-
2010-016; SR-BX-2010-040; SR- CBOE-2010-056; SR-CHX-2010-13; SR-
EDGA-2010-03; SR-EDGX-2010-03; SR- ISE-2010-62; SR-NASDAQ-2010-076;
SR-NSX-2010-07; SR-NYSE-2010-47; SR- NYSEAmex-2010-60; and SR-
NYSEArca-2010-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the changes to the clearly erroneous process under Rule
2128, ISE replaced existing Rule 2128(c)(4) with all new text to
provide clarity in the clearly erroneous process when a Pause Pilot
trading pause is triggered. Pursuant to Rule 2128(c)(4), Latency Trades
will be broken by the Exchange if they exceed the applicable percentage
from the Reference Price, as noted in the table found under Rule
2128(c)(1).\7\ The Reference Price, for purposes of Rule 11.13(c)(4)
[sic], is the price that triggered a trading pause pursuant to the
Pause Pilot (the ``Trading Pause Trigger Price''). As such, Latency
Trades that occur on ISE would be broken by the Exchange pursuant to
Rule 2128(c)(4) if the transaction occurred at either three, five or
ten percent above the Trading Pause Trigger Price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to Rule 2128(c)(1), a security with a Reference
Price of greater than zero and up to and including $25 is subject to
a 10% threshold; a security with a Reference Price of greater than
$25 and up to and including $50 is subject to a 5% threshold; and a
security with a Reference Price of greater than $50 is subject to a
3% threshold.
    \8\ Rule 2128(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2011, the Commission approved a joint proposal to
expand the respective Pause Pilot rules of the Exchanges and FINRA to
include all remaining National Market System (``NMS'') stocks (``Phase
III Securities'').\9\ The new pilot rules,

which were implemented on August 8, 2011, not only expand the
application of the Pause Pilot, but also apply larger percentage moves
that trigger a pause to the Phase III Securities. Specifically, the
rules of the listing markets were amended so that a pause in a Phase
III Security with a closing price on the previous trading day of $1 or
more is triggered by a 30 percent price move within a five minute
period. A pause in a Phase III Security with closing price on the
previous trading day of less than $1 is triggered by a 50 percent price
move within a five minute period. If no prior day closing price is
available, the last sale reported to the Consolidated Tape on the
previous trading day is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011),
76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2011-016; SR-BYX-
2011-011; SR-BX-2011-025; SR- CBOE-2011-049; SR-CHX-2011-09; SR-
EDGA-2011-15; SR-EDGX-2011-14; SR- FINRA-2011-023; SR-ISE-2011-028;
SR-NASDAQ-2011-067; SR-NYSE-2011-21; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-32; SR-
NYSEArca-2011-26; SR-NSX-2011-06; SR-Phlx- 2011-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Issue
    The recently-approved changes to the Pause Pilot will have the
unintended effect of removing the Phase III Securities from the normal
clearly erroneous process and potentially result in unfair outcomes in
the face of severe volatility in such securities. Phase III Securities
are currently subject to the clearly erroneous process under Rule
2128(c)(1)-(3), which apply to all securities except the current Pause
Pilot securities subject to a pause. For purposes of transactions in
securities not involving Pause Pilot securities, or transactions
involving Pause Pilot securities that occur when there is not a pause
pursuant to the Pause Pilot, the Reference Price is the consolidated
last sale price immediately prior to the execution(s) under review,
subject to certain exceptions.\10\ As noted above, the Trading Pause
Trigger Price is used as the Reference Price when a Pause Pilot pause
is in effect. As a consequence, under the current rules a Latency Trade
is subject to the clearly erroneous thresholds based on the Trading
Pause Trigger Price, which represents a ten percent or greater move in
the transacted price of the security in a five-minute period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new Pause Pilot rules, a Latency Trade in a Phase III
Security occurs only after either a 30 or 50 percent (or greater) move
in the transacted price of the security in a five-minute period. As a
result, a member firm that trades in a Phase III Security that triggers
a clearly erroneous threshold of three, five or ten percent from the
Reference Price, yet falls below the Pause Pilot trigger of either 30
or 50 percent, would be able to avail itself of a clearly erroneous
review. A similarly situated member firm that transacts in the same
security as a Latency Trade at a price equal to or greater than the
Phase III Security thresholds, yet less than the clearly erroneous
thresholds under Rule 2128(c)(1), would not be able to avail itself of
the clearly erroneous process. Another member firm that transacts in
the same security as a Latency Trade that exceeds three, five or ten
percent from the Trading Pause Trigger Price would automatically
receive clearly erroneous relief. ISE believes that this would be an
inequitable result and an arbitrary application of the clearly
erroneous process. Specifically, ISE believes that, since the 30 and 50
percent triggers of the Pause Pilot are substantially greater than the
10 percent threshold of the original Pause Pilot, the Phase III
Securities should remain under the current clearly erroneous process of
Rule 2128(c)(1)-(3).
    Applying the clearly erroneous process under Rule 2128(c)(1)-(3) to
the Phase III Securities would allow ISE to review all transactions
that exceed the normal clearly erroneous thresholds and Reference
Price, and, importantly, avoid arbitrary selection of ``winners'' and
``losers'' in the face of severe volatile moves in a security of 30 or
50 percent over a five minute period. For example, a member firm that
trades in a Phase III Security that triggers a clearly erroneous
threshold of three, five or ten percent, yet falls below the Pause
Pilot trigger threshold trading at 29 percent from the prior day's
closing price, would be potentially entitled to a clearly erroneous
break pursuant to Rule 2128(c)(1). Should trading in that same stock
trigger a trading pause at a price of 30 or 50 percent greater than the
prior day's close, the member firm would not be entitled to a clearly
erroneous trade break unless that trade exceeded three, five or ten
percent beyond the price that triggered the pause. This scenario causes
an inequity among a group of member firms that have transactions in the
Phase III Securities falling between the three, five and ten percent
thresholds from the Reference Price under the normal Rule 2128(c)(1)
clearly erroneous process and the Pause Pilot clearly erroneous
triggers of three, five or ten percent away from the Trading Pause
Trigger Price. Such member firms would not be provided relief under the
clearly erroneous rules merely due to the imposition of a Pause Pilot
halt, notwithstanding that other member firms with transactions that
occur at the same rolling five minute percentage difference would be
provided such relief. ISE believes a better outcome is to afford all
members transacting in Phase III Securities the opportunity of having
such trades reviewed.
Summary
    The expansion of the Pause Pilot to the Phase III Securities will
have the unintended consequence of setting the point at which a clearly
erroneous transaction occurs once a Pause Pilot pause is initiated far
beyond the triggers applied prior to the expansion, which will, in
turn, prevent certain market participants from availing themselves of
the clearly erroneous rules, notwithstanding that other similarly
situated participants are able to do so. ISE believes that this would
be an arbitrary application of the clearly erroneous process in a
manner that is unfair and not consistent with the spirit and purpose of
the rule. Accordingly, ISE is proposing to amend Rule 2128(c)(1)-(4) to
specify that Rule 2128(c)(4) applies only to the current securities of
Pause Pilot, and not to Phase III Securities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ISE notes that the Exchanges are filing similar proposals
to make the changes proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\12\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \13\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. ISE
believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in that it
promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning
decisions to break erroneous trades, yet also ensures fair application
of the process so that similarly situated member firms are provided the
same opportunity of a clearly erroneous review. ISE notes that the
changes proposed herein will in no way interfere with the operation of
the Pause Pilot process, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\15\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
clearly erroneous rules to continue to operate as they did prior to the
effectiveness of the Pause Pilot expansion to Phase III Securities so
that similarly situated member firms are provided the same opportunity
of a clearly erroneous review. Accordingly, the Commission waives the
30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission is waiving the five day written notice
requirement in this case. Therefore, the Commission notes that the
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

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-2011-53 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-2011-53. 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 also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-53 and should be
submitted on or before September 7, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20909 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 26875-26876]
[DOCID:fr04jn09-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-0362]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0014, 1625-0038, and 1625-0069

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: 60-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit three Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) and Analyses to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) requesting an extension of its approval for the following
collections of information: (1) 1625-0014, Request for Designation and
Exemption of Oceanographic Research Vessels; (2) 1625-0038, Plan
Approval and Records for Tank, Passenger, Cargo and Miscellaneous
Vessels, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Nautical School Vessels and
Oceanographic Research Vessels--46 CFR Subchapters D, H, I, I-A, R and
U; and (3) 1625-0069, Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast
Tanks Entering U.S. Waters. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB, the
Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2009-
0362], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand Deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from
Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (Attn: Mr. Arthur
Requina), 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting Comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2009-0362], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and will
address accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number for this Notice [USCG-2009-0362] in the
Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room
W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Request for Designation and Exemption of Oceanographic
Research Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0014.
    Summary: This collection requires submission of specific
information about a vessel in order to be designated as an
Oceanographic Research Vessel (ORV).
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 2113 authorizes the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to exempt ORVs, by regulation, from
provisions of Title 46--Shipping, Subtitle II--Vessels and Seamen,
concerning maritime safety and seaman's welfare laws. This information
is necessary to ensure a vessel qualifies for the designation of ORV
under 46 CFR Part 3; Part 14, Subpart D.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners or operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 51 hours
to 35 hours a year.
    2. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Tank Vessels, Passenger
Vessels, Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels, Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units, Nautical School Vessels and Oceanographic Research Vessels--46
CFR Subchapters D, H, I, I-A, R and U.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0038.

    Summary: This collection requires the shipyard, designer or
manufacturer for the construction of a vessel to submit plans,
technical information and operating manuals to the Coast Guard.
    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 3306, the Coast Guard is responsible
for enforcing regulations promoting the safety of life and property in
marine transportation. Information is used to ensure a vessel meets the
applicable standards for construction, arrangement, and equipment under
46 CFR Subchapters D, H, I, I-A, R and U.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Shipyards, designers, and manufacturers of certain
vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 13,790
hours to 2,970 hours a year.
    3. Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.
    Summary: This collection requires the master of a vessel to provide
information detailing the vessel operator's ballast water management
efforts.
    Need: The information is needed to ensure compliance with 16 U.S.C.
4711 and the requirements in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D
regarding the management of ballast water, to prevent the introduction
and spread of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters. The
information is also used for research and periodic reporting to
Congress.
    Forms: CG-5662.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 60,769
hours to 60,727 hours a year.

    Dated: May 28, 2009.
M.B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-12978 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14827-14832]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05508]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0321; FRL-10021-50-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS
or ``standard'') for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area
(NAA). This SIP revision (hereinafter called the ``Detroit
SO2 plan'' or ``plan'') includes Michigan's attainment
demonstration and other elements required under the

Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory
and affirming that the nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
requirements for the area have been met. EPA is disapproving the
attainment demonstration, as well as the requirements for meeting
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT), and contingency measures. Finally, EPA is
disapproving the plan's control measures for two facilities as not
demonstrating attainment and is approving the enforceable control
measures for two facilities as SIP strengthening.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0321. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What actions did EPA propose on this SIP submission?

    On September 18, 2020, \1\ EPA proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove a revision to the Michigan SIP submitted on May
31, 2016, supplemented on June 30, 2016. EPA proposed to take the
following actions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 58315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) EPA proposed to disapprove Michigan Administrative Code (MAC)
336.1430 (``Rule 430'') because the Michigan Court of Claims
invalidated Rule 430 on October 4, 2017. Therefore, there is no
enforceable rule remaining at the state level for EPA to incorporate
into the SIP.
    (2) EPA proposed to disapprove the Detroit SO2
attainment plan pursuant to 172(c) and 192(a), because it relied on
Rule 430 to demonstrate attainment, which can no longer be relied on as
an enforceable mechanism.
    (3) Because of the lack of enforceable measures from Rule 430, the
remaining control strategies can no longer be assessed as a part of a
complete attainment demonstration. Instead, EPA proposed to approve two
permits as SIP strengthening, Carmeuse Lime's Permit to Install 193-14A
and DTE Energy--Trenton Channel's Permit to Install 125-11C. SIP
strengthening is appropriate for limits that improve air quality but do
not meet a specific CAA requirement.
    (4) EPA proposed to disapprove the DTE River Rouge permit, Permit
to Install 40-08H, because it was recently superseded by a new permit
to install, not included in the SIP package, that corrected an error in
the long-term averaging calculation for the superseded permit.
    (5) EPA proposed to approve the 2012 baseline inventory as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and (4) for the Detroit
SO2 NAA.
    (6) EPA proposed to affirm that the new source review requirements
for the area have been met because Michigan has a fully approved NNSR
Program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 76064 (December 16, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Because the Detroit plan is missing enforceable measures for
some major sources of SO2 and is therefore not able to
demonstrate attainment, EPA proposed to disapprove the following:
--The requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and
submit all RACM/RACT and emissions limitations or control measures as
needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.
--The requirement in section 172(c)(2) to provide for RFP toward
attainment in the Detroit SO2 NAA.
--The requirement in section 172(c)(9) to provide for contingency
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP or to attain
NAAQS by the attainment date.
    EPA's action to disapprove portions of the Detroit attainment plan
will start new sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a)-(b) which can
be stopped only if the conditions of EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.31
\3\ are met. Only a full SIP approval or EPA's promulgation of a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1) can stop
FIP clocks, so this action does not have any effect on the FIP clock
that started April 18, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's regulations regarding the implementation of sanctions
requirements required by 179(a).
    \4\ 81 FR 14736 (March 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The proposed action described above had a public comment period
that closed October 19, 2020, and then by request, was reopened until
November 16, 2020. This action received 21 supportive comments, nine
comments not directly relevant to the rulemaking, and a joint comment
letter from Sierra Club and Earth Justice that was partially adverse.
This joint comment letter is summarized below along with EPA's
responses.
    Comment: The commenters contend that the state's modeling contains
several flaws and the modeling methodology should be explicitly
disapproved. The commenters went on to point out several elements with
which they took issue in the modeling. The commenters additionally
provided their own modeling demonstration showing further reductions
needed from several sources in the area.
    Response: The state's modeling is part of the attainment
demonstration which is being disapproved as part of this action.
Because the attainment demonstration is not approvable due to
enforceability issues, it is not necessary for EPA to determine whether
or not the modeling supports attainment, when the modeling relies on
limits that no longer exist. However, EPA has taken note of the
modeling concerns in this comment letter and will include them for
consideration during the continued attainment planning efforts for this
area.
    Comment: The commenters pointed out that the reason for the
invalidation of Rule 430 was because Michigan does not have authority
to impose facility-specific limits. The commenters contend that EPA
should consider whether a SIP-call under CAA section 110(k)(5) is
needed due to Michigan appearing to not meet the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) to have adequate authority to carry out its
implementation plan. EPA should also

move forward with a FIP if the state lacks proper authority.
    Response: Although prohibitions on adoption of individual facility
limits in state rules is not uncommon, in this situation it resulted in
some of the State's submitted SIP limits being invalidated under state
law, which precludes approval of the attainment demonstration and of
those limits. EPA expects now that Michigan will draft future rules to
avoid this prohibition which resulted in invalid limits and make
necessary efforts to properly implement the NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is
actively working on continued attainment planning efforts for this
area, and the result of this SIP disapproval action will be to impose
CAA section 179 sanctions if the State does not take necessary steps to
correct the deficiencies giving rise to the disapproval. Consequently,
in this final action EPA is not prepared to exercise its discretion to
issue a CAA section 110(k)(5) SIP Call to Michigan regarding this
issue, and notes that the State is already obligated to remedy the
deficiencies that would be addressed by any additional SIP Call under
section 110(k)(5), which, if issued, would occur under its own separate
notice and comment process. In addition, in this final action EPA is
not able to additionally promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c), as
that requires its own notice and comment rulemaking process pursuant to
CAA section 307(d). Consequently, this final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove the submitted SIP does not include any
final action under section 110(k)(5) regarding whether to issue a SIP
Call, or under section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP.
    Comment: The commenters recommended that EPA not approve the
Trenton Channel permit as SIP strengthening because the limit is above
the plant's actual current emissions and, therefore, does not
immediately improve air quality. Additionally, the commenters contend
that if included, the limits should undergo a robust analysis on how
the 30-day average is appropriate to meet the one-hour standard.
    Response: EPA disagrees with both points. The permit's inclusion
into the SIP does improve air quality because it restricts the
facility's potential to emit at higher levels in the future compared to
currently allowable levels, even if the facility is not currently
emitting at the permit's levels or the even higher levels allowed under
the current SIP. Additionally, the 30-day average does not need to be
evaluated as to whether it is sufficient to provide attainment under
the one-hour NAAQS, because the permit is not currently being approved
as part of a strategy to meet that standard. However, if the permit is
relied on in future attainment planning efforts, a robust analysis of
the 30-day averaging limit (and any other limits relied upon in such a
future demonstration) will be provided. In this action, EPA makes no
final judgment on whether the 30-day limit combined with other future
possible limits will provide for NAAQS attainment.
    Comment: The commenters stated that EPA should not approve the 2012
base year inventory because it does not meet the CAA section 172(c)(3)
requirements of being ``comprehensive, accurate, [and] current''. The
commenters attempted to demonstrate this by showing emission increases
at two sources when comparing 2012 to 2018 annual emissions.
    Response: During the attainment planning and eventual redesignation
process, three different inventories are considered and approved: Base
year, attainment year, and future maintenance year. This action is only
approving the base year inventory. Base year inventories are a
nonattainment year upon which all future attainment work is based.
Regarding the commenters' claim that the 2012 inventory is out of date,
when Michigan began their attainment planning, 2012 was the most
current year with available emissions data. EPA would not expect a base
year inventory to be amended because time has passed since the
submittal date. The 2018 data would not have been available until 2019
at the earliest, which was three years after the state's submittal. EPA
disagrees with the commenters' second issue, that the 2012 inventory is
inaccurate. The commenters' examples of 2018 emissions are from the
Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS), publicly available
annual emissions data for all major sources in Michigan. The commenters
compared the emissions increase at two sources between 2012 and 2018 to
show inaccuracy in the base year inventory. EPA disagrees that this
data proves inaccuracies, but rather demonstrates the variability of
emissions over time, generally due to economic factors, i.e. increased
affordability of natural gas lowering emissions and increased
manufacturing due to economic demands increasing emissions. When
comparing all the sources in the inventory from 2012 to 2018, total
emissions have decreased by 82 percent, shown in Table 1 below as tons
per year (tpy) of SO2 emissions.

        Table 1--Detroit Area 2012 and 2018 Emissions Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2012            2018
                 Source                      Emissions       Emissions
                                               (tpy)           (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Rouge.............................        8,202.52        2,118.48
Trenton Channel.........................       22,426.12        3,114.04
Monroe..................................       49,150.63        3,854.35
Carmeuse Lime...........................          699.69          482.79
Severstal Steel.........................          677.12          571.74
DIG.....................................          597.88          820.17
Marathon................................          137.34          168.39
U.S. Steel..............................        2,874.30        1,482.91
EES Coke................................        1,900.77        3,253.76
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................       86,666.37       15,866.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions inventories are always likely to vary year to year, but
that does not deem a previous year's inventory inaccurate. As an
example, Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG), one of the sources
pointed out by the commenters as increasing emissions between 2012 and
2018, varies greatly year to year. Looking at data over the most recent
15

years in MAERS, 2003 to 2018, DIG had a lowest value of 364.61 tpy in
2009 and a highest value of 1,038.72 tpy in 2016, showing that the 2012
and 2018 years are both in the middle of the normal annual
fluctuations. The eventual action to approve or disapprove an
attainment year inventory will consider changes in emissions levels
during the attainment planning period, including the differences
pointed out in the comment between 2012 and 2018, and additional
reductions needed to bring the area into attainment. However, the
eventual development of an attainment year inventory will not change
the factual basis of the base year inventory. The attainment planning
process will account for these possible fluctuations by focusing on
potential to emit rather than the actual inventories of any given year.
Therefore, EPA believes 2012 is appropriate for a base year inventory,
and that the submitted 2012 base year inventory is approvable for its
purposes of charactering what emissions were in that base year.
    Comment: The commenters pointed to the language from EPA's proposed
approval stating, ``EPA modeling demonstrates that attainment at
violating receptors can be achieved when the emission limits in the DTE
Trenton Channel Permit are analyzed together with those contained in a
recently issued permit for the DTE River Rouge facility (Permit to
Install 40-08I)'' and contended that EPA should not finalize a finding
that revisions to the DTE Trenton Channel and River Rouge permits would
be enough to achieve attainment.
    Response: EPA is not finalizing a finding that revisions to the DTE
Trenton Channel and River Rouge permits would be enough to achieve
attainment of the one-hour standard. Such a final determination could
be made only upon approval of the state's attainment plan or as part of
EPA's promulgation of a FIP. EPA meant this discussion to explain the
reasoning for DTE River Rouge alone to obtain a new permit in response
to a calculation error found in both the River Rouge and Trenton
Channel 30-day averaging limits. EPA is clarifying that these changes
alone do not prejudge whether these or any other measures will or will
not result in attainment for the entire Detroit area.
    Comment: The commenters are supportive of the disapproval of the
RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measure elements and recommended EPA
finalize as expeditiously as possible. The commenters additionally
supplied recommendations for next steps in replacing the disapproved
portions of this plan.
    Response: In addition to the modeling recommendations, EPA will
also consider the ``next steps'' recommendations in this letter as a
part of the ongoing attainment planning efforts.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is finalizing the following actions as proposed: EPA is
approving the base year inventory and affirming that the new source
review requirements for the area have been met. EPA is also approving
the DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse Lime permits as SIP strengthening.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration, as well as
the requirement for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, contingency measures, the invalidated Rule 430 related to U.S.
Steel, and the superseded 2016 permit related to DTE River Rouge. This
disapproval will start new sanctions clocks for this area under CAA
section 179(a)-(b).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 May 18, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 11, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends title 40 CFR
part 52 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. Amend Sec.  52.1170 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d) adding in alphabetic order entries for
``Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County'' and ``DTE Energy--Trenton Channel,
Wayne County'';
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) adding an entry for ``2010
SO2 Standard 2012 base year'' after the entry for ``2008
lead (Pb) 2013 base year'' under the sub-heading ``Emissions
Inventories''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                EPA--Approved Michigan Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          Name of source               Order number     effective date   EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County......  Permit 193-14A.....  March 18, 2016  March 19, 2021,      ...................
                                                                         [INSERT Federal
                                                                         Register CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
DTE Energy--Trenton Channel,       Permit 125-11C.....  April 29, 2016  March 19, 2021,      ...................
 Wayne County.                                                           [INSERT Federal
                                                                         Register CITATION].

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                      EPA--Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
            provision               nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                              Emission Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 SO2 Standard................  Detroit area (Wayne    May 31, 2016  March 19, 2021,      ...................
2012 base year...................   County, part).                       [INSERT Federal
                                                                         Register CITATION].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-05508 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 24017]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14146-000]

Storage Development Partners, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On April 1, 2011, Storage Development Partners, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Vandenberg 3 Project (project) to be located on Vandenberg Air
Force Base, in Santa Barbara County, California. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be a pumped storage project and consist
of the following: (1) A new 30-foot-high earthen dam with a crest
length of 3,359 feet; (2) an upper reservoir having a total storage
capacity of 4,831 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating elevation of
1,900 feet mean sea level (msl); (3) four 15,100-foot-long, 25-foot-
diameter steel lined penstocks extending between the upper reservoir's
inlet/outlet and the pump/turbines below; (4) a breakwater area within
the Pacific Ocean, serving as the lower reservoir; (5) an underground
powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 250-feet-long by 75-feet-wide
by 100-feet-high and containing four reversible pump/turbine-motor/
generator units with a rated capacity of 284,148 kW each; (6) an 800-
foot-long, 667-foot-wide concrete lined tailrace connecting the pump/
turbine draft tubes with the lower inlet/outlet; (7) a lower inlet/
outlet structure 100-feet below msl; (8) a 30-mile-long, 230-kilovolt
(kV) transmission line extending from the powerhouse to an existing
substation; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Vandenberg 3 Project would be 3,321
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. James Petruzzi, Managing Partner, Storage
Development Partners, LLC., 4900 Woodway, Suite 745, Houston, Texas
77056; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14146) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10310 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35377-35378]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14328-000]

Dolores Water Conservancy District; Notice of Completing
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On May 10, 2012, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Colorado,
filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Plateau Creek Pumped
Storage Project to be located on Plateau Creek, near the town of
Dolores, Montezuma County, Colorado. The project affects federal lands
administered by the Forest Service (San Juan National Forest). The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
(1) An upper reservoir, formed by a 130-foot-high by 6,500-foot-long,
roller-compacted concrete (RCC) or embankment dam, with a total storage
capacity of 8,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 275 acres at
full pool elevation; (2) a lower reservoir, formed by a 270-foot-high
by 800-foot-long dam, having a total storage capacity of 9,500 acre-
feet and a water surface area of 200 acres at full pool elevation; (3)
two 15-foot-diameter steel penstocks consisting of a surface penstock,
a vertical shaft, and an inclined tunnel; (4) two 27-foot-diameter
tailrace tunnels that would be 850-feet-long; (5) an underground
powerhouse containing two reversible pump-turbines totaling 500
megawatts (MW) (2 units x 250 MW) of generating capacity; and (6) a 7-
mile-long, 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that would connect the
switchyard with an existing 230 kV interconnection east of the project
area. The project's annual energy output would vary between 600 and
1,500 gigawatthours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kenneth W. Curtis, III, Dolores Water
Conservancy

District, 60 S. Cactus, P.O. Box 1150, Cortez, CO 81321; phone (970)
565-7562.
    FERC Contact: Brian Csernak; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
14328 filed December 1, 2011. Competing applications had to be filed on
or before May 14, 2012.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14328) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 6, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14447 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ENCLOSURE 2

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

AND COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102 and Section 2.1 of Appendix V of 40 CFR
Part 51, the following information regarding public participation
activities and compliance with state administrative procedures is
provided.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), a hearing to accept public testimony
concerning a proposed revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State
Implementation Plan was held at the Department of Environmental Quality,
DEQ Northern Regional Office, 13901 Crown Court, Woodbridge, Virginia,
at 10:00 a.m. on March 13, 2007.

As required by 40 CFR Part 51.102(d)(1) and (2), the public was given
notice of the hearing in the Washington Times (for the National Capital
Interstate Air Quality Control Region) and the Fredericksburg Free Lance
Star (for the Northeastern Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region), along with the location of the proposal for public inspection,
on February 8, 2007. The attached copy of the notice provides the
evidence required by Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51.  As
required by 40 CFR 51.102(f) and Section 2.1(g) of Appendix V of 40 CFR
Part 51, the hearing was held in accordance with the information found
in the public notice, and according to the state's laws.

The Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
was notified of the hearing, as was each local air pollution control
agency which will be significantly impacted by the revision and is
located in the affected Air Quality Control Regions.  In addition, the
District of Columbia and Maryland, which share affected interstate Air
Quality Control Regions with the National Capital Interstate Air Quality
Control Region, were notified of the hearing.  These notifications
follow the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102(d)(3), (4) and (5).

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by Section 2.1(b) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, the
regulation amendments were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control
Board on September 25, 2006 and subsequently filed in final form with
the Registrar of Regulations.  The amendments were published in the
Virginia Register on November 13, 2006, providing the evidence required
by Section 2.1(b) and (e) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51.  As required
by Section 2.1(d) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, a copy of the actual
regulation submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into
the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan is attached,
along with the effective date of December 15, 2006.

TEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REG02

SIP\NONATTN PLANS\2007\E04-SIP-2.DOC