[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34221-34228]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14097]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476; FRL 9682-2]
RIN 2060-AR56

Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Several Counties in Illinois, Indiana, and
Wisconsin; Corrections to Inadvertent Errors in Prior Designations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule completes the initial air quality designations for
the 2008 primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated the initial
ozone air quality designations for all areas in the United States
except for 12 counties in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, which the
EPA was still evaluating. This action designates those counties. The
EPA is designating all or parts of 11 counties as the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area. The EPA is designating the
remaining county and parts of counties as unclassifiable/attainment.
The Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area is being classified
by operation of law as a Marginal area according to the severity of its
air quality problem. This rule also corrects inadvertent errors in the
regulatory text regarding the designation of three areas in the ozone
designation rule signed on April 30, 2012.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. All documents in the docket are
listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in the docket or in hard copy at the
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office
of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for this rulemaking
at: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. The Web site includes the
EPA's final state and tribal designations, as well as state initial
recommendation letters, the EPA modification letters, technical support
documents, responses to comments and other related technical
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Oldham, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regional Office contact: Edward Doty, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public may inspect the rule and state-
specific technical support information at the following location:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regional office                      Affected states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch,    Illinois, Indiana, and
 EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Street,       Wisconsin.
 Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

    The following is an outline of the preamble.

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is ozone and how is it formed?
IV. What are the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the health and welfare
concerns they address?
V. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations?
VI. What is the chronology for the initial air quality designation
rules and what guidance did the EPA provide?
VII. What air quality data has the EPA used to designate these areas
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
VIII. What are the ozone air quality classifications?
IX. Can states request that areas within 5 percent of the upper or
lower limit of a classification threshold be reclassified?
X. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and
exchanges between EPA, states, and tribes related to this rule?
XI. What are the corrections to inadvertent errors in the
designations for three areas in the April 30, 2012, designations
rule?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

    The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.

APA Administrative Procedure Act
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D.C. District of Columbia
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
PPM Parts per million
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
TAR Tribal Authority Rule
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

II. What is the purpose of this action?

    The purpose of this action is to promulgate initial air quality
designations for 12 counties in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin for the
2008 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, in accordance with the
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d). Whenever the EPA
establishes a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) requires the EPA to
designate all areas of the country as to whether the areas are meeting
or not meeting the new or revised NAAQS. In an action signed on April
30, 2012, the EPA designated all other areas of the country for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012). At that time, the EPA did
not designate 12 counties in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin because
the EPA was still evaluating them for inclusion in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area. The EPA has now completed that
evaluation. The EPA is designating eight of the counties and parts of
three of the counties as the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment
area. The EPA is designating the remaining county and parts of counties
as unclassifiable/attainment. The Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
nonattainment area is also being classified by operation of law as a
Marginal area according to the severity of its air quality problem. The
designation for each of these 12 counties is provided in the tables at
the end of this notice (amendments to 40 CFR 81.314, 315, and 350). For
areas designated as nonattainment, the tables include the area's
classification.
    State areas designated as nonattainment are subject to planning and
emission reduction requirements as specified in the CAA. Requirements
vary according to an area's classification. The EPA will be proposing
shortly an implementation rule to assist states in the development of
state implementation plans for attaining the ozone standards.
    This rule also corrects inadvertent errors in the regulatory text
regarding the designation of three areas in the ozone designation rule
signed on April 30, 2012. The affected areas are the Kentucky portion
of the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area, the partial Kenton
County, KY unclassifiable/attainment area, and Crittenden County, AR.

III. What is ozone and how is it formed?

    Ground-level ozone, O3, is a gas that is formed by the
reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These
precursor emissions are emitted by many types of pollution sources,
including power plants and industrial emissions sources, on-road and
off-road motor vehicles and engines, and smaller sources, collectively
referred to as area sources. Ozone is predominately a summertime air
pollutant. However, high ozone concentrations have also been observed
in cold months, where a few high elevation areas in the Western U.S.
have experienced high levels of local VOC and NOX emissions
that have formed ozone when snow is on the ground and temperatures are
near or below freezing. Ozone and ozone precursors can be transported
to an area from sources in nearby areas or from

sources located hundreds of miles away. For purposes of determining
ozone nonattainment area boundaries, the CAA requires the EPA to
include areas that contribute to nearby violations of the NAAQS.

IV. What are the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the health and welfare concerns
they address?

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged
over 3 years) to provide increased protection of public health and the
environment.\1\ The 2008 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but are set at a more
protective level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008. For a detailed explanation
of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ozone exposure has been associated with increased susceptibility to
respiratory infections, medication use by asthmatics, doctor visits,
and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for individuals
with respiratory disease. Ozone exposure may also contribute to
premature death, especially in people with heart and lung disease. The
secondary ozone standard was revised to protect against adverse welfare
effects including impacts to sensitive vegetation and forested
ecosystems.

V. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations?

    When the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required to designate areas as nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The CAA
requires the EPA to complete the initial area designation process
within 2 years of promulgating the NAAQS. However, if the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations within that
time frame, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for
designation decisions by up to 1 additional year.
    By not later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, each state governor is required to recommend air quality
designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the
EPA. The EPA reviews those state recommendations and is authorized to
make any modifications the Administrator deems necessary. The statute
does not define the term ``necessary,'' but the EPA interprets this to
authorize the Administrator to modify designations that did not meet
the statutory requirements or were otherwise inconsistent with the
facts or analysis deemed appropriate by the EPA. If the EPA intends to
make any modifications to a state's initial recommendation, the EPA is
required to notify the state of any such intended modifications to its
recommendation not less than 120 days prior to the EPA's promulgation
of the final designation. These notifications are commonly known as the
``120-day letters.'' If the state does not agree with the EPA's
intended modification, it then has an opportunity to respond to the EPA
to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by the EPA is
inappropriate. Even if a state fails to provide any recommendation for
an area, in whole or in part, the EPA still must promulgate a
designation that the Administrator deems appropriate.
    Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as,
``any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air
quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.'' If an area
meets either prong of this definition, then the EPA is obligated to
designate the area as ``nonattainment.'' Section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii)
provides that any area that the EPA cannot designate on the basis of
available information as meeting or not meeting the standards should be
designated as ``unclassifiable.'' Historically for ozone, the EPA
designates the remaining areas that do not meet the definition of a
nonattainment area or an unclassifiable area as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' indicating that the areas either have attaining air
quality monitoring data or that air quality information is not
available because the areas are not monitored, and the EPA has not
determined that the areas contribute to a violation in a nearby area.
    The EPA believes that section 107(d) provides the agency with
discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms ``contributes
to'' and ``nearby'' in the definition of a nonattainment area for a new
or revised NAAQS, given considerations such as the nature of a specific
pollutant, the types of sources that may contribute to violations, the
form of the standards for the pollutant, and other relevant
information. In particular, the EPA believes that the statute does not
require the agency to establish bright line tests or thresholds for
what constitutes ``contribution'' or ``nearby'' for purposes of
designations.\2\ Similarly, the EPA believes that the statute permits
the EPA to determine the most appropriate application of the term
``area'' for a particular NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This view was confirmed in Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d
20 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve eligible
Indian tribes to implement provisions of the CAA on Indian reservations
and other areas within the tribes' jurisdiction. The Tribal Authority
Rule (TAR) (40 CFR Part 49), which implements section 301(d) of the
CAA, sets forth the criteria and process for tribes to apply to the EPA
for eligibility to administer CAA programs. The designations process
contained in section 107(d) of the CAA is included among those
provisions determined to be appropriate by the EPA for treatment of
tribes in the same manner as states. Under the TAR, tribes generally
are not subject to the same submission schedules imposed by the CAA on
states. As authorized by the TAR, tribes may seek eligibility to submit
designation recommendations to the EPA.

VI. What is the chronology for the initial air quality designation
rules and what guidance did the EPA provide?

    As discussed above, in 2008 the EPA revised both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone. On December 4, 2008, the EPA issued guidance
for states and tribal agencies to use in developing area designation
recommendations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. (See memorandum from Robert
J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, titled, ``Area Designations for the 2008
Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'') The guidance
provided the anticipated timeline for designations and identified
important factors that the EPA recommended states and tribes consider
in making their recommendations. These factors include air quality
data, emissions data, traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and
patterns, meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional
boundaries. In the guidance, the EPA asked that states and tribes
submit their designation recommendations, including appropriate area
boundaries, to the EPA by March 12, 2009. Later in the process, the EPA
issued two new guidance memoranda related to designating areas of
Indian county.\3\

(There are no areas of Indian country affected by this action.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See December 20, 2011, memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional
Air Directors, Regions I-X, titled, ``Policy for Establishing
Separate Air Quality Designations for Areas of Indian Country,'' and
December 20, 2011, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors,
Regions I-X, titled, ``Guidance to Regions for Working with Tribes
during the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Designations Process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the initial schedule, the EPA intended to complete the
initial designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on a 2-year schedule, by
March 12, 2010. On September 16, 2009, the EPA announced that it would
initiate a rulemaking to reconsider the 2008 ozone NAAQS for various
reasons, including the fact that the 0.075 ppm level fell outside of
the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
the independent group of scientists that provides advice to the EPA
Administrator on the technical bases for the EPA's NAAQS. The EPA
signed the proposed reconsideration on January 6, 2010 (75 FR 2938;
January 19, 2010). Because of the significant uncertainty the ozone
NAAQS reconsideration created regarding the continued applicability of
the 2008 NAAQS, the EPA determined there was insufficient information
to designate areas within 2 years of promulgation of the NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA used its authority under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B) to
extend the deadline for designating areas by 1 year, until March 12,
2011 (75 FR 2936; January 19, 2010). The EPA has not taken final action
on the proposed reconsideration; thus, the current NAAQS for ozone
remains at 0.075 ppm, as established in 2008.
    After the March 12, 2011, designation deadline passed, WildEarth
Guardians and Elizabeth Crowe (WildEarth Guardians) filed a lawsuit
seeking to compel the EPA to take action to designate areas for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. WildEarth Guardians and Elizabeth Crowe v. Jackson
(D. Ariz. 11-CV-01661). The EPA and WildEarth Guardians settled the
case by entering into a consent decree that requires the EPA
Administrator to sign a final rule designating areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by May 31, 2012.
    On September 22, 2011, the EPA issued a memorandum to clarify for
state and local agencies the status of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and to
outline plans for moving forward to implement them. The EPA indicated
that it would proceed with initial area designations for the 2008
NAAQS, and planned to use the recommendations states made in 2009 as
updated by the most current, certified air quality data from 2008-2010.
While the EPA did not request that states submit updated designation
recommendations, the EPA provided the opportunity for states to do so.
Several states chose to update their recommendations, and some
requested that the EPA base designations for their areas on certified
air quality data from 2009-2011, and committed to certify the 2011 data
earlier than the May 1 deadline for annual air monitoring certification
under 40 CFR 58.15(a)(2) so that the EPA would have sufficient time to
consider the data in making decisions on designations and nonattainment
area boundaries. The states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin did not
submit updated designation recommendations.
    On or about December 9, 2011, the EPA sent letters to Governors and
Tribal leaders notifying them of the EPA's preliminary response to
their designation recommendations and to inform them of the EPA's
approach for completing the designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA requested that states submit any additional information that they
wanted the EPA to consider by February 29, 2011, including any
certified 2011 air quality monitoring data. Two days prior to those
letters, on December 7, 2011, Illinois sent a letter to the EPA
submitting the state's 2011 certified air quality monitoring data for
consideration in the designation process. The data, when considered
with data from the two previous years (2009 and 2010), indicated a
violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at a monitor in Lake County, Illinois
(which is in the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI
consolidated statistical area). Given the timing of Illinois'
submission of the certified data, the EPA was not able to consider the
information in the December 9, 2011, letters. After reviewing the 2011
air quality data and assessing contributions to nonattainment from
nearby areas, the EPA sent letters on January 31, 2012, notifying
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin that it intended to designate certain
counties (or parts thereof), identified in those letters, as
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On April 30, 2012, the EPA
Administrator signed a final rule designating almost all areas in the
United States, including Indian country. At that time, the EPA did not
designate the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin counties identified in
the January 31, 2011, notification letters because the necessary 120-
day period had not yet elapsed following the January letters notifying
the states that the EPA intended to modify the states' recommendations.
    Although not required by section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA also
provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the
EPA's 120-day response letters to states and tribes. For the
notification letters sent on or about December 9, 2011, the EPA
announced a 30-day public comment period in the Federal Register on
December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78872). The comment period was subsequently
extended until February 3, 2012 (77 FR 2677; January 19, 2012). On
February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8211), the EPA reopened the public comment
period for the limited purpose of inviting comment on the EPA's revised
responses to Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. State and tribal
recommendations and the EPA's 120-day response letters were posted on
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations and are
available in the docket for the designations action. Comments from the
states, tribes and the public, and EPA's responses to significant
comments, are also in the docket.

VII. What air quality data has the EPA used to designate these areas
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?

    The EPA based the designations in this action on the most recent 3
years of certified air quality monitoring data available at the end of
January 2012 when the EPA notified Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin of
its revised responses to their designation recommendations. Thus, the
EPA considered ozone monitoring data for the 2009-2011 period for
Illinois and for the 2008-2010 period for Indiana and Wisconsin.
    Under 40 CFR 58.16, states are required to report all monitored
ozone air quality data and associated quality assurance data within 90
days after the end of each quarterly reporting period, and under 40 CFR
58.15(a)(2) states are required to submit annual summary reports and a
data certification letter to the EPA by May 1 for ozone air quality
data collected in the previous calendar year. States generally had not
completed these requirements for calendar year 2011 ozone air quality
data when the EPA notified states of our intended designations on
December 9, 2011. For purposes of the designations promulgated on April
30, 2012, several states recommended that the EPA consider monitoring
data from 2009-2011 in making final decisions and certified their 2011
data early for this purpose. In the letters to these states, the EPA
indicated it would need the certified data by February 29, 2012, in
order to have sufficient time to consider it in making final decisions.
On December 7, 2011, Illinois sent a letter to the EPA submitting the
state's 2011 certified air quality data for consideration in the
designations.

Although there was not sufficient time for the EPA to consider the 2011
data from Illinois in the December 9, 2011, letters, the EPA
subsequently considered the data and sent letters to Illinois, Indiana,
and Wisconsin on January 31, 2012, revising the intended designation
for 12 counties in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area. Indiana and
Wisconsin did not request that the EPA consider their 2011 monitoring
data or early certify such data.

VIII. What are the ozone air quality classifications?

    In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1), each area designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is classified by operation of
law at the same time as the area is designated by the EPA. Under
Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA, state planning and emissions
control requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by a
nonattainment area's classification. The ozone nonattainment areas are
classified based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined
based on the area's ``design value,'' which represents air quality in
the area for the most recent 3 years).\4\ The possible classifications
are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. Nonattainment
areas with a ``lower'' classification have ozone levels that are closer
to the standard than areas with a ``higher'' classification. Areas in
the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent
mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in
higher classifications. The EPA established the air quality thresholds
that define the classification categories in a rule titled,
``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications Approach, Attainment
Deadlines and Revocation of the 1997 Ozone Standards for Transportation
Conformity Purposes'' (77 FR 30160; May 21, 2012). Based on those
thresholds, the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area is classified as a
Marginal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Can states request that areas within 5 percent of the upper or
lower limit of a classification threshold be reclassified?

    As discussed in the April 30, 2012, final rule, states may request
that an area be reclassified to a higher or lower classification
pursuant to section 181(a)(4), within 90 days of promulgation of the
designation, if the area would have been classified in another category
if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent
less than the level on which such classification was based. The
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area is being designated as
a Marginal area, which is the lowest classification category.
Therefore, the only possible reclassification would be to a higher
classification. Marginal areas with an air quality design value of
0.082 ppm or more are eligible to request reclassification to a higher
classification under section 181(a)(4). Because the 2009-2011 design
value for the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area is 0.076
ppm, the nonattainment area is not eligible to be reclassified under
that provision. However, the EPA notes that under section 181(b)(3),
the EPA must grant any state request to reclassify an area into a
higher classification.

X. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and
exchanges between the EPA, states and tribes related to this rule?

    Information providing the basis for this action is provided in the
docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. The
applicable EPA guidance memoranda and copies of correspondence
regarding this process between the EPA and the states, tribes and other
parties are available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above
in the addresses section of this document, and on the EPA's ozone
designation Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. State-
specific information is available from the EPA Regional Office.

XI. What are the corrections to inadvertent errors in the designations
for three areas in the April 30, 2012 designations rule?

    This rule also corrects inadvertent errors in the regulatory text
for two areas in Kentucky and one area in Arkansas in the ozone
designation rule signed on April 30, 2012 (77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012).
The affected areas are the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area
(specifically related to Boone and Campbell counties), the partial
Kenton County, KY unclassifiable/attainment area, and Crittenden
County, AR. These corrections are set forth in the regulatory text at
the end of this notice.
    The Technical Support Document for the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
nonattainment area, which is part of the record for the April 30, 2012,
designations rule, states, ``All of the census tracts in Boone,
Campbell, and Kenton Counties are included in the nonattainment area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, excluding census tracts 706.01 and
706.04 in Boone County, 637.01 and 637.02 in Kenton County, and 520.01
and 520.02 in Campbell County.'' In the regulatory text for the
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN nonattainment area, 2000 Census tracts 706.01 and
706.04 in Boone County, KY and 2000 Census tracts 520.01 and 520.02 in
Campbell County, KY were inadvertently listed as being part of the
nonattainment area. These 2000 Census tracts were also correctly listed
in the regulatory text as designated unclassifiable/attainment. The EPA
is removing the erroneous duplicative listings under the Cincinnati,
OH-KY-IN nonattainment area. For the partial Kenton County
unclassifiable/attainment area, this action corrects a typographical
error that incorrectly numbered one of the component 2000 Census tracts
as 637.04 rather than 637.02.
    The Technical Support Document for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR
nonattainment area, which is part of the record for the April 30, 2012,
designations rule, states, ``Based on the assessment of the factors
described above, the EPA is designating the following counties as
nonattainment for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR area because they are either
violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS or contributing to a violation in a
nearby area: Crittenden County, Arkansas, and Shelby County, Tennessee
in their entireties and the portion of DeSoto County that is included
in the Memphis MPO boundary.'' In the regulatory text for the April 30,
2012, designations rule, Crittenden County, AR was correctly listed as
part of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment area. However, the county
was also inadvertently listed as an unclassifiable/attainment area. The
EPA is correcting that error by removing the duplicative entry for
Crittenden County, AR as an unclassifiable/attainment area.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA
then specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final rule, the EPA
assigns designations to areas as required.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air
quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. This
type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This rule responds to the CAA
requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA
section 107. The present final rule does not establish any new
information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule
is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements as provided under CAA
section 107(d)(2)(B).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not create
any additional requirements beyond those of the CAA and ozone NAAQS (40
CFR 50.15). The CAA establishes the process whereby states take primary
responsibility in developing plans to meet the ozone NAAQS.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the process
whereby states take primary responsibility in developing plans to meet
the ozone NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the
states and the EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the
ozone NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) the EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal
governments, or the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal
summary impact statement.
    The EPA has concluded that this action does not have tribal
implications. The EPA is not designating any areas of Indian country in
this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management
and Budget, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    The CAA requires that the EPA designate as nonattainment ``any area
that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.'' By designating as
nonattainment all areas where available information indicates a
violation of the ozone NAAQS or a contribution to a nearby violation,
this action protects all those residing, working, attending school, or
otherwise present in those areas regardless of minority or economic
status.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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
U.S. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. 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). This rule will be effective July 20, 2012.

L. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA.
This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when
the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.''
    This rule designating the final few areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of section 307(b)(1).
This rule, along with a rule signed on April 30, 2012, establishes
designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. At the
core of this rulemaking is the EPA's interpretation of the definition
of nonattainment under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, and its
application of that interpretation to areas across the country.
    Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81, is
amended as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

Sec.  81.304  [Amended]

0
2. In section 81.304, the table entitled ``Arkansas--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' is amended by removing the entry for
Crittenden County before the entry for Cross County.

0
3. In section 81.314, the table entitled ``Illinois--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding a new entry for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' before
the entry for ``St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL'';
0
b. By adding a new entry for ``Grundy County (remainder)'' before the
entry for ``Hamilton County''; and
0
c. By adding a new entry for ``Kendall County (remainder)'' before the
entry for ``Knox County''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                                        Illinois--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation                        Classification
            Designated area            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\             Type             Date \1\            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-N-WI: \2\......  .................  Nonattainment....  .................  Marginal.
    Cook County
    DuPage County
    Grundy County (part)
        Aux Sable Township
        Goose Lake Township
    Kane County
    Kendall County (part)
        Oswego Township
    Lake County
    McHenry County
    Will County

                                                  * * * * * * *
Grundy County (remainder) \3\.........  .................  Unclassifiable/
                                                            Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Kendall County (remainder)............  .................  Unclassifiable/
                                                            Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.

* * * * *

0
4. In section 81.315, the table entitled ``Indiana--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding a new entry for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' before
the entry for ``Cincinnati, OH-K-IN''; and
0
b. By adding a new entry for ``Jasper County'' before the entry for
``Jay County''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                        Indiana--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation                        Classification
            Designated area            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\             Type             Date \1\            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\.....  .................  Nonattainment....  .................  Marginal.
    Lake County
    Porter County

                                                  * * * * * * *
Jasper County \3\.....................  .................  Unclassifiable/
                                                            Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.

* * * * *

Sec.  81.318  [Amended]

0
5. In section 81.318, the table entitled ``Kentucky--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the 2000 Census tracts ``706.01'' and ``706.04'' under
the entry for ``Boone County (part)'' under the entry for ``Cincinnati,
OH-KY-IN'';
0
b. By removing the 2000 Census tracts ``520.01'' and ``520.02'' under
the entry for ``Campbell County (part)'' under the entry for
``Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN''; and
0
c. By revising 2000 Census tract ``637.04'' to read as ``637.02'' under
the entry for ``Kenton County (part)'' under ``Rest of State''.
0
6. In section 81.350, the table entitled ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding a new entry for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' before
the entry for ``Sheboygan County, WI''; and
0
b. By adding a new entry for ``Kenosha County (remainder)'' before the
entry for ``Kewaunee County''.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

                                       Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation                        Classification
            Designated area            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date\1\              Type             Date\1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\.....  .................  Nonattainment....  .................  Marginal.
    Kenosha County (part)
        Pleasant Prairie Township
        Somers Township

                                                  * * * * * * *
Kenosha County (remainder) \3\........  .................  Unclassifiable/
                                                            Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-14097 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71684-71686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28575]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 301 and Forms ATS and ATS-R, SEC File No. 270-451, OMB
Control No. 3235-0509.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation ATS provides a regulatory structure for alternative
trading systems. Regulation ATS allows an alternative trading system to
choose between registering as a broker-dealer and complying with
Regulation ATS, or registering as a national securities exchange.
Regulation ATS provides the regulatory framework for those alternative
trading systems that choose to be regulated as broker-dealers. Rule 301
of Regulation ATS contains certain notice and reporting requirements,
as well as additional obligations that apply only to alternative
trading systems with significant volume. The Rule requires all
alternative trading systems that wish to comply with Regulation ATS to
file an initial operation report on Form ATS. The initial operation
report requires information regarding operation of the system including
the method of operation, access criteria and the types of securities
traded. Alternative trading systems are also required to supply updates
on Form ATS to the Commission, describing material changes to the
system, and quarterly transaction reports on Form ATS-R. Alternative
trading systems are also required to file cessation of operations
reports on Form ATS.

    An alternative trading system with significant volume is required
to comply with requirements for fair access and systems capacity,
integrity, and security. Under Rule 301, such alternative trading
system is required to establish written standards for granting access
to its system. In addition, such alternative trading system is required
to make and keep records of all grants of access including, for all
subscribers, the reasons for granting such access, and all denials or
limitations of access and reasons, for each applicant, for denying or
limiting access. Regulation ATS requires alternative trading systems to
preserve any records made in the process of complying with the
capacity, integrity, and security requirements. In addition, such
alternative trading systems are required to notify Commission staff of
material systems outages and significant systems changes.
    The Commission uses the information provided pursuant to the
Regulation ATS to monitor the growth and development of alternative
trading systems, and to monitor whether the systems promote fair and
orderly securities markets and operate in a manner that is consistent
with the federal securities laws. In particular, the information
collected and reported to the Commission by alternative trading systems
enables the Commission to evaluate the operation of alternative trading
systems with regard to national market system goals, and monitor the
competitive effects of these systems to ascertain whether the
regulatory framework remains appropriate to the operation of such
systems. Without the information provided on Forms ATS and ATS-R, the
Commission would not have readily available information on a regular
basis in a format that would allow it to oversee the securities
markets.
    Respondents consist of alternative trading systems that choose to
register as broker-dealers and comply with the requirements of
Regulation ATS. The Commission estimates that there will be
approximately 95 respondents.
    An estimated 95 respondents will file an average total of 598
responses per year, which corresponds to an estimated aggregated annual
response burden of 2,872.50 hours (comprised of 2,156 hours
professional labor and 716.5 hours para-professional labor). At an
average cost per burden hour of approximately $379 for professional
labor and $63 for para-professional labor, the resultant total related
cost of compliance for these respondents is $862,263.50 per year
((2,156 professional burden hours multiplied by $379 = $817,124) plus
(716.5 para-professional burden hours multiplied by $63 = $45,139.50).
    An estimated 7 respondents will commence operations as an ATS each
year, necessitating the filing of an initial operation report on Form
ATS. The Commission estimates that the average compliance burden for
each respondent would be 20 hours, comprising 13 hours of in-house
professional work and 7 hours of clerical work. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 140 hours (7 responses x 20 hours = 140
hours). The total cost of compliance for the annual burden is $37,576
($379 x 13 hours per response + $63 x 7 hours per response = $5,368 per
response; $5,368 x 7 responses = $37,576).
    An estimated 95 respondents will file an estimated two periodic
amendments to their initial operation report on Form ATS each year, an
estimated total of 190 amendments. The Commission estimates that the
average compliance burden for each amendment would be 6 hours,
comprising 4.5 hours of in-house professional work and 1.5 hours of
clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 1,140
hours (190 responses x 6 hours = 1,140 hours). The total cost of
compliance for the annual burden is $342,000 ($379 x 4.5 hours per
response + $63 x 1.5 hours per response = $1,800 per response; $1,800 x
190 responses = $342,000).
    An estimated 95 respondents will file four quarterly reports on
Form ATS-R each year for an estimated total of 380 responses. The
Commission estimates that that the average compliance burden for each
filing would be 4 hours, comprising 3 hours of in-house professional
work and 1 hour of clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per
year is 1,520 hours (380 responses x 4 hours = 1,520 hours). The total
cost of compliance for the annual burden is $456,000 ($379 x 3 hours
per response + $63 x 1 hours per response = $1,200 per response; $1,200
x 380 responses = $456,000).
    An estimated 5 respondents will be required to file a cessation of
operations report on Form ATS each year. The Commission estimates that
the average compliance burden for each response would be 2 hours,
comprising 1.5 hours of in-house professional work and 0.5 hours of
clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 10 hours
(5 responses x 2 hours = 10 hours). The total cost of compliance for
the annual burden is $3,000 ($379 x 1.5 hours per response + $63 x 0.5
hours per response = $600 per response; $600 x 5 responses = $3,000).
    An estimated 2 respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to establish written standards for granting access to
their systems. The Commission estimates that the average compliance
burden for each response would be 10 hours of in-house professional
work at $379 per hour. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 20
hours (2 responses x 10 hours = 20 hours). The total cost of compliance
for the annual burden is $7,580 ($379 x 10 hours per response x 2
responses = $7,580).
    An estimated 2 respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to make and keep records of (1) all grants of access
including, for all subscribers, the reasons for granting such access;
and (2) all denials or limitations of access and reasons, for each
applicant, for denying or limiting access. The Commission estimates
that the average compliance burden for each response would be 10 hours
of in-house professional work at $379 per hour. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 20 hours (2 respondents x 10 hours = 20
hours). The total cost of compliance for the annual burden is $7,580
($379 x 10 hours per response x 2 respondents = $7,580).
    An estimated 2 respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to keep records relating to any steps taken to comply
with systems capacity, integrity, and security requirements under Rule
301. The Commission estimates that the average compliance burden for
each response would be 10 hours of in-house professional work at $379
per hour. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 20 hours (2
respondents x 10 hours = 20 hours). The total cost of compliance for
the annual burden is $7,580 ($379 x 10 hours per response x 2
respondents = $7,580).
    An estimated 2 respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to provide a notice to the Commission to report any
system outages, and these notice obligations will be triggered an
estimated 5 times per year for each respondent. The Commission
estimates that the average compliance burden for each response would be
0.25 hours of in-house professional work at $379 per hour. Thus, the
total compliance burden per year is 2.5 hours (2 respondents x 5
responses each x 0.25 hours = 2.5 hours). The total cost of compliance
for the annual burden is 947.50 ($379 x 0.25 hours per response x 10
responses = $947.50).
    Written comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 22, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28575 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30161-30162]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-176-000]

City of Falmouth, Kentucky; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on June 20, 2018, the City of Falmouth, Kentucky
(Falmouth or Petitioner) filed a petition for a declaratory order
requesting the Commission confirm that when Falmouth changes power
suppliers on May 1, 2019, Falmouth will be able to continue to obtain
transmission service over the facilities of East Kentucky Power
Cooperative at the same rates, and under the same terms and conditions,
as would have applied for deliveries to Falmouth's load had it remained
a power supply customer of Kentucky Utilities Company, as more fully
explained in the petition.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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 5
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
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 19, 2018.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13850 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4069-4070]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22492; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-020]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. Marys, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
that amends a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNAV)
Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedures
(IAPs) that serve the Elk Regional Medical Center (7PS9), St. Marys,
PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by

reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia
Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61296-
61297). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would
become effective on December 20, 2007. No adverse comments were
received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, GA on December 17, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-203 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: July 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36066-36068]
[DOCID:fr02jy07-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054]

Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators; Extension of
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators Standard (29 CFR
1926.552). The Standard is designed to protect employees who operate
and work around personnel hoists.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0054). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Stewart
Burkhammer at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Burkhammer, Directorate of
Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed

and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This
program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting
burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is
accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act)
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers
as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for
developing information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The
OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum
burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and
to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following section describes who uses the information collection
requirements contained in the Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and
Elevators Standard.

Posting Requirements

    Paragraph (a)(2) requires that the rated load capacities,
recommended operating speeds, and special hazard warnings or
instructions be posted on cars and platforms.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires that operating rules for material
hoists be established and posted at the operator's station of the
hoist. These rules shall include signal system and allowable line speed
for various loads.
    Paragraph (c)(10) requires that cars be provided with a capacity
and data plate secured in a conspicuous place on the car or crosshead.
    These posting requirements are used by the operator and crew of the
material and personnel hoists to determine how to use the specific
machine and how much it will be able to lift as assembled in one or a
number of particular configurations. If not properly used, the machine
would be subject to failures, endangering the employees in the
immediate vicinity.

Test and Inspection and Certification Records

    Paragraph (c)(15) requires that a test and inspection of all
functions and safety devices be made following assembly and erection of
hoists. The test and inspection are to be conducted under the
supervision of a competent person. A similar inspection and test is
required following major alteration of an existing installation. All
hoists shall be inspected and tested at three-month intervals. A
certification record (the most recent) of the test and inspection is
required to be kept on file, including the date the test and inspection
was completed, the identification of the equipment and the signature of
the person who performed the test and inspection. This certification
ensures that the equipment has been tested and is in safe operating
condition.

Disclosure of Test and Inspection Certification Records

    The most recent certification record will be disclosed to a CSHO
during an OSHA inspection. Disclosing the certification record to the
CSHO demonstrates the employer's compliance with this provision.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Material Hoists, Personnel
Hoists, and Elevators Standard (29 CFR 1926.552). The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Material Hoists, Personnel Hoists, and Elevators (29 CFR
1926.552).
    OMB Number: 1218-0231.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 26,547.
    Frequency: On occasion; weekly; monthly; quarterly.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) for a
supervisor to disclose test and inspection certification records to 30
minutes (.50 hour) for a construction worker to obtain and post
information for hoists.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,282.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $-0-.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0054). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site.
    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access

the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-12705 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 77851-77852]
[DOCID:fr27de06-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54960; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Minor Clarifying Changes to Phlx Rules Governing
Registration

December 18, 2006.
    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 December 6, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') 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 Phlx. The Phlx filed
the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to make minor clarifying changes to Phlx rules
governing registration. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Phlx's Web site (http://www.phlx.com), at the Phlx's

Office of the Secretary 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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 recently amended Exchange Rules 600, 604, 620, 623,
and 1024 and Equity Floor Procedure Advice (``EFPA'') and Option Floor
Procedure Advice (``OFPA'') F-25; and adopted EFPA F-34 and OFPA F-34
to create a more efficient, centralized registration process by
migrating from a manual paper-based Exchange procedure to the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.'s Web Central Registration
Depository (``Web CRD'') process for registration and processing of
fingerprints.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53612 (April 6,
2006), 71 FR 18798 (April 12, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to further clarify
Exchange Rules 600, 604, 620 and 1024 and corresponding EFPAs and OFPAs
F-25 and F-34, as they relate to the new Web CRD process. The Exchange
believes that the clarifying language should help all members,
participants, and member and participant organizations to better
understand the rules relating to Web CRD.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed 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 by
clarifying Phlx rules and corresponding EFPAs and OFPAs in connection
with providing information to Web CRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Phlx provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change. In addition, the Phlx has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change
clarifies existing Exchange rules relating to Web CRD. For this reason,
the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative
upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2006-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-83. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-83 and should be submitted on or before
January 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22092 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 64574]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22623]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78846; File No. SR-ICC-2016-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Revise the ICC Risk Management Model Description Document and
the ICC Risk Management Framework

September 15, 2016.
    On July 15, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise the ICC Risk
Management Framework to incorporate certain risk model enhancements.
ICC also proposed minor clarifying edits to the ICC Risk Management
Model Description document and the ICC Risk Management Framework (File
No. SR-ICC-2016-010). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 4, 2016.\3\ To date, the
Commission has not received comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78448 (July 29,
2016), 81 FR 51532 (Aug. 4, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is September 18, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposed rule change would
modify the ICC Risk Management Framework. The Commission finds it
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider
ICC's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates November 2, 2016 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
ICC-2016-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22623 Filed 9-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P