[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3712-3719]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1514]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0329; FRL-9622-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Ohio
State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for the first
implementation period. Ohio submitted its regional haze plan on March
11, 2011. The Ohio regional haze plan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements for states to remedy any existing
and prevent future anthropogenic impairment of visibility at mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous
sources located over a wide geographic area, also referred to as the
``regional haze program''. States are required to assure reasonable
progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of
these SIP revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for
Ohio on the basis that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Ohio
SIP. In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Ohio regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, we are not
taking action in this notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0329, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0329. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's regional haze plan?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and its precursors-sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity and distance one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range, the distance at which an
object is barely discernable, in many Class I areas \1\ in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers. That is about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In the eastern and Midwestern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a Federal Land Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we
use the term ``Class I area,'' we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations, codified at 40 CFR
part 50, subpart P, represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that
emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR,
on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR, which amends 40 CFR part 50,
subpart P, revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate
into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The subpart P requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR
51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the
regional haze requirements are summarized in section III. The
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, effectively addressing the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas means that states need to develop
coordinated strategies that take into account the effect of emissions
from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country and then pursued the
development of regional strategies to reduce PM2.5 emissions
and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a collaborative effort of state
governments and various federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility and other air quality issues in the Midwest. The member
states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Plans must also give specific
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require those sources to install best available retrofit technology
(BART) reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview \3\ (dv) as the principal metric
or unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric
expresses uniform proportional changes in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy

conditions. Visibility expressed in deciview is determined by using air
quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming
the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview
is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility
than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal
incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most
people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals
(RPGs), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and
tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by anthropogenic air pollution. The national goal is a return to
natural conditions such that anthropogenic sources of air pollution
would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciviews for
the average of the 20 percent least impaired (best) and 20 percent most
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each
of its Class I areas. Each state must also develop an estimate of
natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf ) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf )) (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, due December 17, 2007, the
``baseline visibility conditions'' are the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent best days and 20 percent worst days for each calendar year from
2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for
each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-
year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions
to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement
necessary to attain natural visibility, while comparisons of future
conditions against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of
progress made. In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a state with
a mandatory Class I area (Class I state) must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately 10-
year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
best days.
    Class I states have significant discretion in establishing RPGs,
but are required to consider the following factors established in
section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The
states must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered
when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-
1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (``uniform rate
of progress'' or ``glide path'') and the emissions reduction needed to
achieve that rate of progress over the approximately 10-year period of
the SIP. In setting RPGs, each Class I state must also consult with
potentially contributing states, i.e. those states that may affect
visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories
of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. The set
of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART is listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. A
state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGU)
with total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether

VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility in Class I areas.
    States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART
modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source
may be considered to have a small enough contribution to visibility
impairment in any Class I area to warrant being exempted from the BART
requirement. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART only if the alternative program can be demonstrated to
achieve greater progress toward the national visibility goal than
implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for CAIR
under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program. 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provided that states
participating in the CAIR trading program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant
to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions
of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). CAIR is not
applicable to emissions of PM, so states were still required to conduct
a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that
pollutant.
    CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until the
Agency replaced it. Id. EPA replaced CAIR with the Transport Rule in
August 2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219.
Based on the proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states, including Ohio, to meet the requirements of an
alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken final action on
that rule.

D. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submission to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
RPGs for all Class I areas within or affected by emissions from the
state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to address interstate
visibility issues sufficiently.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS. The seven factors are: (1) Emission reductions
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5)
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these
purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS
for RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b)
and (c). The state must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. It must also submit the first such coordinated LTS
with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic
progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted
consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress
reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The
periodic review of a state's LTS must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision and report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment.

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement for a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance
with this requirement may be met through participation in the IMPROVE
network, meaning that the state reviews and uses monitoring data from
the network. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional
monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine
whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible in electronic format;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data,
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility;
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMS)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's regional haze plan?

    Ohio submitted its regional haze plan on March 11, 2011, which
included revisions to the Ohio SIP to address regional haze.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be
affected by that state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Ohio does not
have any Class I areas within the state. Ohio reviewed technical
analyses conducted by MRPO and other regional planning organizations to
determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by Ohio
emission sources. MRPO conducted both a back trajectory analysis and
modeling to determine the affects of its states' emissions. Ohio also
used assessments by MANE-VU, the regional planning organization for
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states and by VISTAS, the regional
planning organization for Southeastern states. Finally, Ohio used a
joint state assessment by Arkansas and Missouri. The conclusion from
these five technical analyses is that Ohio emissions affect 15 Class I
areas. The affected Class I areas are: Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas in Arkansas; Mammoth Cave in Kentucky; Acadia National
Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine; Hercules-Glades and Mingo
Wilderness Areas in Missouri; Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New
Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; Great Smoky
Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; Lye Brook
Wilderness Area in Vermont; James River Face Wilderness Area and
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
Wilderness Area in West Virginia. Ohio has thereby satisfied the
requirement to identify the Class I areas it affects.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to calculate the baseline and
natural conditions for their Class I areas. Ohio does not have any
Class I areas. Therefore, Ohio is not required to submit such
calculations.

C. RPGs

    Class I states must set RPGs that achieve reasonable progress
toward achieving natural visibility conditions. Ohio does not have any
Class I areas, so it does not need to set any RPGs. Ohio did consult
with affected Class I states to ensure that it achieves its fair share
of the overall emission reductions necessary to achieve the RPGs of
Class I areas that it affects.
    Ohio consulted with the FLMs during the development of its regional
haze plan. Ohio submitted a draft of its regional haze plan to the FLMs
on September 9, 2008. The FLMs provided comments on October 16, 2008.
Ohio sent the FLMs a revised regional haze plan on December 29, 2008.
Ohio revised its plan based on the initial comments. Ohio later held a
public hearing on February 26, 2009, which also concluded the public
comment. The Forest Service gave additional comments in a February 25,
2009, letter. A joint March 10, 2009, letter from the National Park
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also provided comments on
Ohio's plan. Ohio has committed to continue to consult with the FLMs as
it develops future SIP revisions and progress reports.
    Ohio participated in meetings and on conference call with affected
Class I states and RPOs. Ohio consulted with Minnesota and Michigan on
their Class I areas. Ohio also participated in MRPO's inter-RPO
consultations. MANE-VU, the RPO for the Northeastern states,
facilitated

consultation between Ohio and Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and
Vermont. Ohio also consulted with Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North
Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia.
    Ohio included the MPRO technical support document (TSD) in its
submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, MPRO assessed the reasonable
progress using the four factors required by the RHR. The factors
considered are the cost of compliance, time needed, energy and non-air
impacts, and remaining useful life.
    In analyzing the visibility benefits of existing programs, MPRO
considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highway mobile
source, area source, power plant, and other point source programs. MPRO
also included reductions from the since vacated CAIR in its analysis.
Following the court vacatur of CAIR, MRPO performed an additional
analysis intended to project air quality in the absence of CAIR. MPRO
projected visibility in 2018 under three scenarios in this analysis.
The first scenario reflected simple emissions growth from a baseline
that reflects power plant emissions in 2007, prior to most of the
emission controls pursuant to CAIR being installed. The second scenario
added reductions for power plants controls that are enforceable under
federal or state consent decrees, permits, or rules. The final scenario
also added power plant controls that the utilities anticipated
installing, presumably under the expectation that EPA would issue a
rule to replace CAIR, plus power plant controls representing BART where
applicable. The MRPO analysis showed that many Class I areas, including
those impacted by Ohio, will fail to meet the 2018 RPGs with the
emission reductions resulting from CAIR.
    Ohio believes that implementation of the existing control measures
listed in section 10 of its regional haze plan is expected to provide
its fair share of emission reductions that should allow affected Class
I areas to meet the RPGs. However, CAIR is one of the existing control
measures and the MRPO analysis shows emission reductions equivalent to
the scale of CAIR are needed to meet RPGs. Reliance on CAIR as part of
a state's LTS to achieve the state-adopted RPGs is discussed in section
E of this notice.

D. BART

    Ohio conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART
Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y to identify all of the
BART-eligible sources, assess whether the BART-eligible sources are
subject to BART and determine the BART controls. These criteria are:
(1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one of the
26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emissions unit(s) was
constructed on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence prior to
August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing
pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year. Ohio
initially identified 39 BART-eligible sources, including 18 EGUs and 21
other facilities. Ohio did not consider EGUs in its analysis as it
chose to meet BART requirements for EGUs for SO2 and
NOX by participation in CAIR, and because the particulate
matter emissions from EGUs were found not to warrant further control.
Ohio found that 12 non-EGUs remained as potential BART sources after
further screening. Ohio then used the modeling protocol MRPO developed
to determine the sources subject to BART. MRPO conferred with its
states, EPA, and the FLMs in developing its BART modeling protocol.
Consistent with EPA guidance, the state used a 0.5 dv impact (98th
percentile) as the threshold for a source to contribute to visibility
impairment, concluding that such a threshold provided an appropriate
means of identifying which sources cause sufficient visibility
impairment to warrant being subject to BART. Ohio found that just one
non-EGU facility was subject to BART, P.H. Glatfelter of Ross County.
    Ohio performed a five factor BART determination of the Glatfelter
facility. Glatfelter added NOX controls to both units in
2001 and 2003. Additional NOX combustions controls are
technically infeasible for tangentially fired boilers. Ohio determined
that post-combustion control was unnecessary because additional
NOX reductions would have negligible visibility impact. Ohio
concluded that operating the units at the current emission limits
satisfies the BART requirement for NOX.
    Ohio evaluated several SO2 control devices for the
Glatfelter boilers. The BART determination process lead to narrowing
the potential control devices down to three options--wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), semi-dry FGD, and over-fire air (OFA) with a
sorbent injection system (SIS). Ohio and MPRO conducted visibility
modeling of the BART options. Modeling of the FGD controls indicates an
average of less than one day with impairment over 0.5 dv at affected
Class I sites, which does not contribute to visibility impairment. Both
FGD controls are expected to achieve a 90 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions. The OFA/SIS option would reduce emissions by
about 60 percent and yield modeling impacts over 0.5 dv on up to 7 days
a year. Ohio selected semi-dry FGD as the BART SO2 control,
which is expected to reduce SO2 emissions by 20,515 tons per
year.
    P.H. Glatfelter is subject to an alternative to BART. Ohio issued a
permit on March 7, 2011, with the limitations on Glatfelter's Boilers 7
and 8. P.H. Glatfelter must operate its PM control devices, cyclones
and electrostatic precipitators, and its NOX control
devices, low-NOX burners with over-fire air, on both units.
The NOX controls are to be operated all year instead of just
the May 1 to September 30 control period. P.H. Glatfelter will add a
control device, use alternate fuel, use low sulfur fuel, use a
combination of measures, or permanently shut down a boiler to achieve a
SO2 emission limit of 24,930 pounds per calendar day. Ohio's
permit specifies that this limit is for Boilers 7 and 8 combined.
Continuous emission monitor systems will be used to measure the daily
SO2 emissions. P.H. Glatfelter will comply with the
alternative to BART emission limits by December 31, 2014.
    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's alternative to BART limits for
P.H. Glatfelter. Ohio is requiring P.H. Glatfelter to continue
operation of its PM and NOX controls. Modeling shows
negligible visibility benefit for PM reductions. The BART determination
indicated that additional NOX control is unnecessary and
Glatfelter will use its controls all year long. The SO2
emission limit of 24,930 pounds per calendar day given to Boilers 7 and
8 in the permit are slightly more stringent that what Ohio determined
as BART. The semi-dry FGD that Ohio selected as the BART SO2
control would have an emission limit of 24,931 pounds SO2
per day for both units. EPA is satisfied with the limits because they
are the as stringent as what Ohio determined to fulfill BART
requirements. EPA proposes in particular to approve permit number
P0103673 issued on March 7, 2011, that imposes these limitations on the
P.H. Glatfelter facility.
    Ohio used a cumulative modeling analysis by MRPO to determine that
PM and VOC emissions will not cause or contribute to visibility
impairment. The MRPO analysis of all point sources in the region showed
a cumulative impact of less than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. PM and VOC
emissions from just Ohio sources would be well less than from all
states and even smaller when considering only 39 of those sources are
BART-eligible. Ohio therefore concludes that PM and VOC emissions from
its BART sources have a negligible

visibility impact. Thus, it did not consider PM or VOC reductions in
its BART determinations.

E. LTS

    Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states'
regional haze programs must include an LTS for making reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Ohio's LTS must
address visibility improvement for the Class I areas impacted by Ohio
sources. Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that Ohio consult with the
affected states in order to develop a coordinated emission management
strategy. A contributing state, such as Ohio, must demonstrate that it
has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I areas
affected by Ohio sources. As described in section III.E., the LTS is
the compilation of all control measures Ohio will use to meet
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the RPGs for all Class I areas affected by Ohio emissions.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that a
state must consider in developing its LTS: (A) Emission reductions due
to ongoing programs, (B) measures to mitigate impact from construction,
(C) emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) replacement and retirement
of sources, (E) smoke management techniques, (F) federally enforceable
emission limits and control measures, and (G) the net effect on
visibility due to projected emission changes over the LTS period. Ohio
considered the seven factors in developing its LTS.
    Ohio relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its emission
information in developing an LTS. Ohio consulted with Class I states
through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations with
other Midwest states and with states in other regions through inter-RPO
processes. Ohio considered the factors set out in 51.308(d)(3)(v) in
developing its LTS. Based on these factors and the MRPO's technical
analysis, in conjunction with RPGs that were set by the pertinent
states in consultation with Ohio and other states, Ohio concludes that
existing control programs adequately address Ohio's impact on Class I
areas and suffice to meet their RPGs by 2018 by implementing the
control programs already in place. These existing control programs
include federal motor vehicle emission control program, reformulated
gasoline, emission limits for area sources of VOCs, Title IV, the
NOX SIP Call, NOX Reasonable Achievable Control
Technology, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, and
federal non-road standards for construction equipment and vehicles.
These programs are fully enforceable, provide for the mitigation of new
source impacts through new source permitting programs, and reflect
appropriate consideration of current programs and prospective changes
in emissions.
    As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011), a number of states, including Ohio,
fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time, relied on the
trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. In
that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Ohio's LTS based on
its reliance on CAIR. Comments on that proposed determination may be
directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. We are proposing to
find that the remaining elements of Ohio's LTS meet the requirements of
the RHR.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    Ohio's monitoring strategy relies on participation in the IMPROVE
network. There is an IMPROVE Protocol monitoring site in Quaker City,
Ohio. Ohio also runs a network of criteria pollutant monitors that
provides data to analyze air quality problems including regional haze.
Ohio is required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) to have procedures for using
the monitoring data to determine the contribution of emissions from
within the state to affected Class I areas. Ohio developed procedures
in conjunction with the MRPO. The procedures are detailed in the MRPO
TSD. EPA finds that Ohio's regional haze plan meets the monitoring
requirements for the RHR and that Ohio's network of monitoring sites is
satisfactory to measure air quality and assess its contribution to
regional haze.

G. Comments

    Ohio took comments on its proposed regional haze plan. It held a
public hearing on February 26, 2009, which concluded the public comment
period. Ohio also received comments from the FLMs as part of the
consultation process. Evidence of the public notice and evidence of the
public hearing were submitted to EPA.
    Ohio provided the comments it received and its responses in a
document within its regional haze plan. Ohio revised portions of its
plan in response to comments. This includes emission limits on the non-
EGU BART facility being tightened from Ohio's draft plan. Ohio has
satisfied the requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V to provide
evidence that it gave public notice, took comments, and that it
compiled and responded to comments.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Ohio SIP,
submitted on March 11, 2011, addressing regional haze for the first
implementation period. The revisions seek to satisfy CAA and regional
haze rule requirements for states to remedy any existing anthropogenic
and prevent future impairment of visibility at Class I areas.
    EPA finds that Ohio's submission satisfies BART requirements for
non-EGUs, most notably by providing new, tighter emission limits for
the Glatfelter facility in Ross County, Ohio, Ohio's submission
provides an approvable analysis of the emission reductions needed to
satisfy reasonable progress and other regional haze planning
requirements, and Ohio's submission meets other regional haze planning
requirements such as identification of affected Class I areas and
provision of a monitoring plan. Because for these reasons Ohio's
submission helps address regional haze planning requirements, EPA is
also proposing limited approval of Ohio's submission for its SIP
strengthening effect.
    In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Ohio regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA
of CAIR. 76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011. Consequently, we are not
taking action in this notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.

VI. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1514 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28449]
[DOCID:fr16my08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5705-000]

Taylor, G. Tom; Notice of Filing

May 8, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2008, G. Tom Taylor filed an application
to hold an interlocking positions pursuant to section 305(b) of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2000), Part 45 of the
Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 45 (2005) and the Commission's
Order No. 664, 112 FERC ] 61,298 (2005).
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10963 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16169-16170]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07659]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The information collected is used by the FAA to
register aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust. The information
required to register and prove ownership of an aircraft is required
from any person wishing to register an aircraft. The Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collection of information was published on January 30, 2018.
No comments were received.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to

enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0042.
    Title: Aircraft Registration.
    Form Numbers: 8050-1, 8050-2, 8050-4, 8050-98, 8050-88, 8050-88A,
8050-117, 8050-117.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Public Law 103-272 states that all aircraft must be
registered before they may be flown. It sets forth registration
eligibility requirements and provides for application for registration
as well as suspension and/or revocation of registration. The
information collected is used by the FAA to register an aircraft or
hold an aircraft in trust. The information requested is required to
register and prove ownership.
    Respondents: Approximately 146,757 registrants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 103,982 hours.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 4, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-07659 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 57397-57399]
[DOCID:fr02oc08-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58649; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Modify Its Policy With Respect to
Legal Opinions in Connection With Listings of Securities

September 25, 2008.
    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 September 9, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``the Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On
September 21, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice, as amended,
to solicit comments on the proposal from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical, non-
substantive corrections to Exhibits 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Manual by removing the
provisions throughout Chapter Seven that require issuers to supply
opinions of counsel to the Exchange in connection with any initial
listing application or supplemental listing application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This filing deletes references to the opinion of counsel
requirements from the ``Reference Guide For Subsequent Listing
Applications'' section at the front of the Manual and replaces them
with a requirement (i) furnish the Exchange with copies of opinions
of counsel filed in connection with recent public offerings or (ii)
if no opinions of counsel exist, provide to the Exchange a
certificate of good standing from the company's jurisdiction of
incorporation. In addition, the filing makes the same modification
to the following sections of the Manual: 702.04 (Supporting
Documents); 703.01 (part 2) (General Information); 703.02 (part 3)
(Stock Split/Stock Rights/Stock Dividend Listing Process); 703.03
(Short Term Rights Offerings Relating to Listed Securities Listing
Process); 703.04 (Public Offerings and Private Placement of Common
Stock Listing Process); 703.05 (Preferred Stock Offerings Listing
Process); 703.06 (Debt Securities Offerings Listing Process); 703.07
(Reserves for Convertible Securities Listing Process); 703.08
(Mergers, Acquisitions and Other Business Combinations Listing
Process); 703.09 (Stock Option, Stock Purchase and Other
Remuneration Plans Listing Process); 703.10 (Technical Original
Listing Process); 703.11 (Supplemental Listing Process); 703.12
(Warrants Listing Standards); 703.13 (``Special Stocks'' Listing
Process (Stocks Which Have Periodic Increases in Conversion Rate
Into Common Stock)); 703.14 (Voting Trust Certificate Listing
Process); and 903.01 (Format of Original Listing Application).

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

    Exchange rules have long required the delivery of an opinion of
counsel addressed to the Exchange in connection with each application
to list securities, including applications to list additional shares of
a previously listed class.\5\ The Exchange believes that its opinion
requirement is duplicative of several safeguards that now exist to
protect investors in listed securities. In particular, an issuer's
independent auditor reviews the issuance of securities as part of its
annual audit. Additionally, the underwriters of securities sold in a
public offering receive legal opinions as to the validity of the
issuance of the securities they purchase, as well as performing their
own due diligence on the company and the securities. Furthermore, a
legal opinion as to the legality of the issuance of the securities
being registered is delivered to the SEC in connection with the filing
of any registration statement. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
end its policy of requiring legal opinions in connection with listing
applications, including applications to list additional shares of a
previously listed class. In lieu of the existing opinion requirements,
the Exchange will require issuers to (i) furnish the Exchange with
copies of opinions of counsel filed in connection with recent public
offerings or (ii) if no opinions of counsel exist, provide to the
Exchange a certificate of good standing from the company's jurisdiction
of incorporation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In connection with the listing of equity securities,
including rights, warrants, preferred stock, options, etc., the
required opinion (as set forth in Section 702.04) relates to: (i)
The legality of organization of the company; (ii) the authorization
of the issuance of the securities for which listing application is
made; (iii) the validity of such securities; (iv) whether shares
are, or will be when issued, fully-paid and non-assessable; (v)
whether shareholders are personally liable under the laws of the
jurisdiction in which the company is organized and the jurisdiction
in which its principal place of business is located; (vi) the date
and nature of any order or proceeding of any Federal or State
regulatory authority prerequisite to issuance of any unissued
securities covered by the application and, if such steps have not
been completed, the present status thereof; (vii) whether the shares
require registration under the Federal securities laws and, if so, a
statement that the shares are so registered; and (viii) if counsel,
any partner of such counsel, or any member of a firm rendering the
opinion is a director or officer of the company, that fact is
required to be disclosed in the opinion.
    In the case of debt securities, Section 703.06(G) requires an
opinion of counsel addressing: (i) The legality of organization of
the company; (ii) the authorization by the Board of Directors, in
accordance with Exchange policy, of the issuance and listing of the
securities for which the listing application is made; (iii) the
validity of such securities; qualification of the indenture under
the Trust Indenture Act of 1939; and (iv) effectiveness of
registration of the securities under the Securities Act of 1933, or,
if not registered, the reasons why not.
    \6\ The Exchange will also put companies on notice of this
requirement by including a reference to it in the checklist of
required documentation sent out to listing applicants and included
on the Exchange's Web site. See the revised list of required
documentation included in Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission approved a rule filing by
the American Stock Exchange (the ``Amex'') in 2000 to eliminate opinion
requirements from the Amex Company Guide under the same conditions the
Exchange is proposing in this filing.\7\ Additionally, to the
Exchange's knowledge, Nasdaq does not require legal opinions in
connection with new listings. As such, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to conform its listing procedure in this regard with those
of its direct competitors. In doing so, the Exchange will avoid the
possibility of any competitive harm arising out of the imposition of
this additional burden on issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42539 (March 17,
2000), 65 FR 15672 (March 23, 2000) (SR-Amex-99-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 \8\ of the Act in general and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \9\ in particular, in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments, and to 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 amendment specifically seeks to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market by conforming the Exchange's listing procedures to those of
Nasdaq and the Amex, thereby eliminating any competitive disadvantage
the Exchange may suffer as a result of imposing a legal opinion
requirement with respect to securities listings. In addition, the
Exchange's procedures will continue to protect the interests of
investors by imposing requirements that will ensure that listed
companies are duly and validly organized and in good standing in their
jurisdiction of incorporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 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 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule change (i) will not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest, (ii) will not impose any significant burden on competition,
and (iii) will not become operative for 30 days after the date of this
filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange provided the Commission with 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 date of the filing of the proposed rule change as required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 C.F.R. 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.

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-NYSE-2008-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-82. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory organization.
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-NYSE-2008-82
and should be submitted on or before October 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23193 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P