[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14191-14192]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1113-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3616 Iron Star Wind Project/ITC E&P
Ag Cancel-Amended Filing to be effective 2/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1164-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-04_SA 3438 Entergy
Arkansas-Long Lake Solar GIA (J834) to be effective 2/21/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200304-5295.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1167-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Republic Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-04_Republic
Transmission Integration Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200304-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1168-000.
    Applicants: DTE Big Turtle Wind Farm I, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DTE Big Turtle Wind Farm I,
LLC Notice of Succession to be effective 1/15/2020.

    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1169-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: The Dayton Power and Light
Company submits IA SA No. 3137 to be effective 5/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1170-000.
    Applicants: Electric Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation Open Access
Transmission Tariff to be effective 3/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1171-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, SA No.
5231; Queue No. AC1-048/AC2-053/AE1-006 to be effective 2/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1172-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination of Expired
TSA--ReEnergy Ashland, LLC to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1173-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination of Expired
Interconnect Agreement--ReEnergy Ashland, LP to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1174-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-05_SA 3440 OTP-
Dakota Range III FSA (J488) BSP Switch Replacement to be effective 3/6/
2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1175-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-05_SA 3441 OTP-
Tatanka Ridge Wind FSA (J493) BSP Switch Replacement to be effective 3/
6/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1176-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-05_SA 3342 OTP-Deuel
Harvest Wind FSA (J526) BSP Switch Replacement to be effective 3/6/
2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1177-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended GIA and DSA San
Gorgonio Westwinds II, San Jacinto Power SA No. 863-864 to be effective
5/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1178-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5596;
Queue No. AD1-020 to be effective 2/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200305-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 5, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04961 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34704-34707]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-10]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0475; FRL-8932-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
steam-enhanced crude oil production well vents, aerospace coating
operations, and polyester resin operations. We are proposing action on
local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0475, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD.................................         4401  Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil            12/14/06       5/8/07
                                                        Production Wells.
SJVAPCD.................................         4605  Aerospace Assembly and               9/20/07       3/7/08
                                                        Component Coating Operations.
SJVAPCD.................................         4684  Polyester Resin Operations.....      9/20/07       3/7/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for Rule 4401
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review. On April 17, 2008, EPA determined that
the submittal for Rules 4605 and 4684 met the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4401 into the SIP on June
22, 1998 (63 FR 33854). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on December 14, 2006. We approved an earlier version
of Rule 4605 into the SIP on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64537). The
SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on September 20,
2007. We approved an earlier version of Rule 4684 into the SIP on June
26, 2002 (67 FR 42999). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 20, 2007.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The revisions to Rule
4401 narrow exemptions, add leak inspection and repair requirements,
enhance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and improve rule
clarity. The revisions to Rule 4605 and Rule 4684 improve rule clarity
and strengthen the solvent cleaning provisions. EPA's technical support
documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
section 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an extreme (for
the 1-hour NAAQS) and serious (for the 8-hour NAAQS) ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 4401, 4605, and 4684
must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Surface Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing & Rework
Operations,'' EPA-453/R-97-004, December 1997.
    5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.
    6. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498, Apr. 16, 1992.
    7. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' 70 FR 71612, Nov. 29, 2005.
    8. Letter from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT) Questions and Answers,'' May 18, 2006.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    Rule 4401 improves the SIP by establishing more stringent work
practice requirements and by enhancing monitoring and recordkeeping
provisions. Rules 4605 and 4684 improve the SIP by clarifying
monitoring and recordkeeping provisions and establishing more stringent
emission limits for solvents. The rules are largely consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP
relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria
are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and
part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. Rule 4401 allows sources to request a waiver from an annual
source test requirement if approval is granted by the District, CARB,
and EPA. However, Rule 4401 states that a request for a waiver is
deemed approved by EPA if we do not object within 45 days of receipt.
The SJVAPCD cannot obligate EPA's decision making in this manner.
Section 6.2.4 effectively provides executive officer discretion in
conflict with CAA sections 110(a) and (i) and long-standing national
policy.
    2. Rule 4605 does not include seventeen of the specialty VOC
coating limits provided in the 1997 CTG for coating operations at
aerospace facilities and has limits for two other specialty coating
categories that are higher than the applicable limits listed in the
CTG. SJVAPCD has not demonstrated that the CTG limits are infeasible in
San Joaquin Valley or otherwise adequately demonstrated that Rule 4605
implements RACT.
    3. Rule 4684 contains limits that are not as stringent as
requirements in several other California districts. Fiberglass boat
manufacturing facilities subject to this rule are covered by EPA's 2008
CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. As such, the District
is required to adopt and submit a SIP revision that satisfies RACT for
these sources by September 2009. In addition, Rule 4684 appears also to
apply to certain other sources that are not covered by the CTG but that
emit major amounts of VOCs. These sources are also subject to RACT
because they are major sources of ozone precursors. The District has
not demonstrated that the more stringent monomer content requirements
and capture and control device requirements in other California rules
are infeasible in San Joaquin Valley or otherwise adequately
demonstrated that Rule 4684 meets RACT.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommended for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into
the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This
approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rules under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval
is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would
be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also
trigger the two year clock for the Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have
been adopted by the SJVAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would
not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

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).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism 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 State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from Tribal officials.

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

    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
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (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

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-17045 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 26454]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3633-042]

Brighton Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 3633-042.
    c. Date Filed: August 30, 2019.
    d. Submitted By: KC Brighton, LLC (KC Brighton).
    e. Name of Project: Brighton Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located on the Patuxent River in Howard and Montgomery
counties, Maryland. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Richard Ely, KC Brighton, LLC,
27264 Meadowbrook Drive, Davis, CA 95618,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email_
[email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Chris Millard at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. KC Brighton filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on August 30, 2019 and provided public notice of the request on
September 17, 2019. In a letter dated April 28, 2020, the Director of
the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved KC Brighton's request to
use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. KC Brighton filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER>
(TTY).
    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 3633. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31,
2022.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 28, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09436 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71109-71113]
[DOCID:fr08de06-30]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-54863; File No. S7-19-06]
RIN 3235-AJ41

Proposed Amendments to Municipal Securities Disclosure

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is publishing for comment proposed amendments
to a rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
relating to municipal securities disclosure which would delete
references to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') as a
recipient of material event notices filed by or on behalf of issuers of
municipal securities or other obligated persons.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 8, 2007.

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. S7-19-06 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

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 No. S7-19-06. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments

are also available for public inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Mahan Haines, Chief, Office of
Municipal Securities, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mary N. Simpkins, Senior
Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or David Liu, Special Counsel, at
(202) 551-5645, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is requesting public comment
on proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12 [17 CFR 240.15c2-12] under the
Exchange Act.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. 1994 Amendments to Rule 15c2-12
    B. CDI System and CDINet
II. MSRB Petition
III. Discussion
IV. Request for Comment
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. Costs and Benefits of Proposed Amendments to Rule 15c2-12
    A. Benefits
    B. Costs
VII. Consideration of Burden and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition, and Capital Formation
VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
X. Statutory Authority

I. Background

A. 1994 Amendments to Rule 15c2-12

    On November 10, 1994, the Commission adopted amendments (``1994
Amendments'') to Rule 15c2-12 (``Rule'') under the Exchange Act \1\ to
provide, among other things, enhanced ongoing disclosure to the market
for municipal securities.\2\ Pursuant to subsection (b)(5)(i) of the
Rule,\3\ the Commission requires brokers, dealers, and municipal
securities dealers (``Participating Underwriters''), prior to
underwriting a primary offering of municipal securities of $1,000,000
or more, to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person
for whom financial or operating data is presented in the final official
statement (``Issuer''), has undertaken, in a written agreement or
contract for the benefit of bondholders, to provide certain continuing
disclosure information. Among other things, the Issuer must undertake
to send to each nationally recognized municipal securities information
repository (``NRMSIR'') or the MSRB, and to the appropriate state
information depository (``SID''), if any, certain material event
notices designated in subsection (b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule.\4\ In
addition, subsection (b)(5)(i)(D) of the Rule requires a Participating
Underwriter to reasonably determine that the Issuer has agreed to
notify those same repositories if it fails to provide annual financial
information by the agreed-upon date.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12.
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34961 (November 10,
1994), 59 FR 59590 (November 17, 1994) (``1994 Adopting Release'').
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(b)(5)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(C). Subsection (b)(5)(i)(C)
lists the following events which, if material, require notice: (1)
Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non-payment
related defaults; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves
reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit
enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of
credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6)
adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of
the security; (7) modifications to rights of security holders; (8)
bond calls; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of
property securing repayment of the securities; and (11) rating
changes.
    In addition, in Rule 15c2-12(d)(2), the small issuer exemption
is conditioned on an issuer or obligated person undertaking a
limited disclosure obligation, including sending certain material
event notices to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, as well as the appropriate
SID. 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(d)(2).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission included the MSRB in its plan for dissemination of
material event notices set forth in the Rule because, at the time of
the 1994 Amendments, the MSRB already had a voluntary disclosure system
in place for receiving and disseminating certain types of material
event notices.\6\ As the Commission noted in the 1994 Adopting Release,
``permitting issuers and obligated persons to file such notices either
with each NRMSIR or with the MSRB (as well as the appropriate SID) will
facilitate prompt and wide disclosure.'' \7\ In adopting the 1994
Amendments, the Commission also stated that inclusion of the MSRB as a
filing option reflected the preference expressed by some commenters to
file the required notices in one central place, rather than having to
file with multiple NRMSIRs.\8\ Under the Rule, the use of the MSRB
filing alternative is optional, as the material event notice obligation
can be satisfied by sending notice to each of the NRMSIRs rather than
to the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30556 (April 6,
1992), 57 FR 12534 (April 10, 1992) (``CDI System Approval Order'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33742 (March 9, 1994),
59 FR 12759 (March 17, 1994) (``1994 Proposing Release'') at 12764,
note 25.
    \7\ See 1994 Adopting Release at 59605.
    \8\ See 1994 Adopting Release at 59605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CDI System and CDINet

    The MSRB's original system for receiving material event notices,
the Continuing Disclosure Information (``CDI'') System, was approved by
the Commission in April 1992 and commenced operation in January
1993.\9\ On March 24, 1997, the MSRB implemented certain improvements
to its dissemination process and replaced its earlier CDI System with
CDINet. CDINet was approved by the Commission in December 1996 \10\
and, among other things, is designed to accept and disseminate material
event notices submitted as a result of the Rule. Once a document has
been accepted and processed by CDINet, it is broadcast to subscribers
\11\ and made available in the MSRB's public access facility.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CDI System Approval Order.
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38066 (December 19,
1996), 61 FR 68322 (December 27, 1996) (``CDINet Approval Order'').
    \11\ The MSRB has represented to the Commission that CDINet has
only two subscribers. See infra notes 18 and 19.
    \12\ The MSRB has represented to the Commission that, as of
September 2005, no one has requested CDINet information at the
MSRB's public access facility for at least the last five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. MSRB Petition

    In a recent letter to the Commission,\13\ the MSRB petitioned the
Commission to remove the MSRB as a recipient of material event notices
under the Rule.\14\ According to the MSRB petition, CDINet was designed
to permit Issuers to satisfy their material event undertakings through
a single submission to the MSRB, rather than through separate filings
to each of the NRMSIRs. However, the MSRB states that relatively few
Issuers have opted to use CDINet and, in recent years, usage of CDINet
has diminished. According to the MSRB, in 1997, CDINet received over
10,000 material event notices. Since that time, submissions to the MSRB
have dropped considerably, ranging from 1,000 to 2,500 annually.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter from Diane G. Klinke, General Counsel, MSRB, to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated September 8, 2005
(``MSRB Petition'').
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12.
    \15\ MSRB Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review conducted by the MSRB of the material event notices
received by CDINet in the first half of 2004 showed that, of the 1,104
notices received in that time period, 504 were bond calls, 213 were
defeasances, and 145 were rating changes.\16\ The MSRB also

recently reviewed a sample of 100 material event notices received by
CDINet in June 2005.\17\ The MSRB believes that most of the material
event notices received by CDINet also are provided to, or otherwise
obtained by, the NRMSIRs.\18\ In its petition, the MSRB also expressed
concern that the notices filed exclusively with the MSRB may not be
reaching the broader market as intended by the Rule because not all
NRMSIRs subscribe to CDINet and the information may not otherwise be
widely distributed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The remaining notices included the following categories:
Failure to File Annual Report (70 notices); Information not
specifically required under SEC Rule 15c2-12 (70); Bond Calls and
Defeasances (56); Annual Report and CAFR Related Information (13);
Various multiple categories indicated (10); Release, Substitution,
or Sale of Property Securing Repayment of Securities (5); Principal
and Interest Payment Delinquencies (4); Substitution of Credit or
Liquidity Providers, or Their Failure to Perform (4); Non-Payment
Related Defaults (3); Adverse Tax Opinions or Events Affecting the
Tax-Exempt Status of the Security (3); Unscheduled Draws on Debt
Service Reserves Reflecting Financial Difficulties (2); Unscheduled
Draws Credit Enhancements Reflecting Financial Difficulties (1); and
Modifications to the Rights of Security Holders (1). See Attachment
to MSRB Petition.
    \17\ MSRB Petition at 2-3.
    \18\ Definitive information on 90 of the June 2005 notices was
found by the MSRB in a review of information available from NRMSIRs
that do not subscribe to CDINet. CDINet only has two NRMSIR
subscribers: Kenny S&P and Thomson Financial Services. MSRB Petition
at 2, note 7. The MSRB presumed that the remaining ten notices were
not provided directly to all the NRMSIRs. These notices included six
notices regarding failure to provide an annual financial statement,
two bond calls, one rating change and one relating to ``other
information.'' The MSRB believes that there is some evidence,
however, that at least one NRMSIR may have received some of the
notices of failure to provide an annual financial statement but
subsequently superseded such information with the annual financial
statements themselves once these were received. MSRB Petition at 3,
note 8.
    \19\ MSRB Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB believes that the need for CDINet has also
been lessened because an alternative document delivery system has
become available to Issuers and dissemination agents who prefer to send
their filings to a single location for delivery to all of the NRMSIRs
and any appropriate SID.\20\ In its petition to the Commission, the
MSRB stated that it believes that the number of documents submitted to
CDINet will further decrease and that the continued operation of CDINet
would provide minimal continuing benefit to the marketplace.\21\
Finally, because of the age of the CDINet system, the MSRB states that
upgrades at an estimated cost of $500,000 to $1 million would be
necessary to keep the system operational.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Commission understands that there may be other entities
that have developed or are developing services related to Rule 15c2-
12.
    \21\ MSRB Petition at 3.
    \22\ MSRB Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission proposes to amend Rule 15c2-12 \23\ to delete
references to the MSRB as an alternative recipient of material event
notices filed by Issuers. Under the proposal, Issuers and their
dissemination agents instead would undertake to send material event
notices to each NRMSIR and the appropriate SID, if any. The Commission
believes that, given the limited usage of the MSRB's CDINet system and
the MSRB's petition for rulemaking, the proposed elimination of the
option of filing material event notices with the MSRB is warranted. The
relatively small number of filings made with CDINet indicates that
there is little demand for the MSRB filing option. The Commission
believes that requiring Issuers to send their material event notices
only to each of the NRMSIRs and any appropriate SIDs would simplify the
Rule and compliance by Issuers with their undertakings, because Issuers
would be required to file material event notices at the same locations
that annual financial information is required to be filed pursuant to
undertakings in accordance with subsection (b)(5)(i)(A) of the
Rule.\24\ In addition, the Commission believes that eliminating the
MSRB filing option would better assure that material event notices are
widely disseminated to the market, since it appears that CDINet data
may not be broadly distributed.\25\ Requiring that each NRMSIR and the
appropriate SID, if any, receives all material event notices should
help assure the completeness and consistency of information available
from those repositories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12.
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(A).
    \25\ As the MSRB's recent review showed, a portion of the
notices received by the MSRB may not have been fully disseminated to
the wider market, since there are only two subscribers to the MSRB's
CDINet. See supra notes 18 and 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes the MSRB's statement that the
upgrading of CDINet required to maintain the system would cost
approximately $500,000 to $1 million.\26\ In light of the current
alternative options under Rule 15c2-12 for Issuers to file with NRMSIRs
and SIDs and the lack of demand for the MSRB filing alternative--both
by Issuers and information users--the Commission believes that the
MSRB's proposal to cease CDINet's operations is reasonable. The
Commission notes that the MSRB has committed to forward material event
notices to the NRMSIRs and applicable SIDs for a period of one year
from the date CDINet ceases operations.\27\ The MSRB has also agreed to
alert senders of such notices of the fact that CDINet is ceasing
operations, and ask that such senders comply with their undertakings by
sending future material event notices to the NRMSIRs and applicable
SIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ MSRB Petition at 3.
    \27\ MSRB Petition at 4; Letter from Diane G. Klinke, General
Counsel, MSRB, to Martha Mahan Haines, Chief, Office of Municipal
Securities, Commission, dated April 20, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Comment

    The Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendments to the
Rule. Specifically, comment is requested on whether, in light of the
alternative filing options available to Issuers and dissemination
agents, there is still a need for the MSRB to be a recipient of
material event notices. The Commission also requests comment on whether
there exist any applicable continuing disclosure agreements which
require issuers or other obligated persons to file material event
notices solely with the MSRB that might require modification were the
Commission to amend the Rule as proposed. It is the staff's
understanding that such agreements often contain a requirement to file
notices with both the (1) NRMSIRs and applicable SIDs and (2) MSRB. The
Commission seeks comment on whether any such agreements require filings
solely with the MSRB.
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed
amendment would in fact simplify compliance with undertakings in
accordance with the Rule, and better assure widespread dissemination of
material event notices.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendment to the Rule, contains no new ``collection of
information'' requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\28\ The title of the current
information collection as required and under the Rule is Municipal
Securities Disclosure (17 CFR 240.15c2-12) (OMB Control No. 3235-0372).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Costs and Benefits of Proposed Amendments to Rule 15c2-12

    The Rule currently requires Participating Underwriters to
reasonably determine that Issuers have undertaken to submit material
event notices to (1) each NRMSIR or the MSRB and (2) the appropriate
SID, if any. The proposed amendments would remove the MSRB as an option
for the filing of such notices, thereby requiring submission, pursuant
to the undertakings, to each NRMSIR and the appropriate SID, if any.

A. Benefits

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
to the Rule should improve the disclosure of material event information
to the municipal securities marketplace. Because the MSRB's CDINet
system currently only has two subscribers, it is

not clear that all material event notices submitted to the MSRB are
fully distributed to the marketplace. Requiring that each NRMSIR and
the appropriate SID, if any, receives all material event notices should
help assure the completeness and consistency of information available
from those repositories. The Commission also preliminarily believes
that the elimination of the MSRB as a filing option would simplify
compliance by Issuers with their undertakings in accordance with the
Rule. If the proposed amendments are adopted, Issuers would be required
to file, pursuant to their undertakings, material event notices at the
same locations--each NRMSIR and the appropriate SID, if any--that
annual financial information is required to be filed. Finally, the
Commission preliminarily concludes that the proposed amendments could
save the MSRB substantial funds, represented by the MSRB to be
approximately $500,000 to $1 million,\29\ by not requiring it to
perform certain upgrades to its CDINet system which would otherwise be
required in order for the system to be maintained. As the costs of the
MSRB are paid primarily from fees paid by brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers, those parties and their customers would
benefit from this savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ MSRB Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Costs

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
to the Rule should only minimally increase compliance costs for a few
Issuers and may decrease overall compliance costs. Because some Issuers
may currently be sending their material event notices only to the MSRB,
the proposed amendments would require them to send such notices to each
of the (currently four) NRMSIRs. However, the Commission believes that
the cost of sending such notices to three additional locales would be
minimal because such notices are generally short in length and would
only encompass the additional costs of copying several pages, as well
as the minor additional mailing costs. In addition, the MSRB has
indicated that there is an alternative free document delivery system
available to Issuers and dissemination agents who prefer to send their
filings to a single location for delivery to all of the NRMSIRS and
appropriate SIDs.\30\ We request comment on whether this would result
in any increased costs to issuers. Finally, the Commission
preliminarily believes that those Issuers that currently send to their
material event notices to each NRMSIR as well as the MSRB would reduce
their costs because the proposed amendments would require those Issuers
to send their material event notices to one fewer location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Commission understands that there may be other entities
that have developed or are developing services related to Rule 15c2-
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist the Commission in evaluating the costs and benefits that
may result from the proposed amendments to the Rule, the Commission
requests comments on the potential costs and benefits identified in the
release, as well as any other costs or benefits that may result from
the proposed amendments to the Rule. In addition, the commenters should
provide analysis and data to support their views on the costs and
benefits.

VII. Consideration of Burden and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition,
and Capital Formation

    Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act \31\ requires the Commission,
whenever it engages in rulemaking and is required to consider or
determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, to consider whether the action would promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of
the Exchange Act \32\ requires the Commission, when making rules under
the Exchange Act, to consider the impact of such rules on competition.
Section 23(a)(2) also prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule
that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
to the Rule would not impose any burdens on efficiency, capital
formation, and competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed amendments are
expected to simplify the material event notice delivery requirements
for Issuers, in accordance with their undertakings, by eliminating the
MSRB as an alternative. In doing so, the Commission preliminarily
believes that municipal securities disclosure would be enhanced, as all
Issuers would be required to send all NRMSIRs (and appropriate SIDs)
such notices. Under the current disclosure system, Issuers may choose
to send such notices to the MSRB. However, there is some evidence \33\
that some of the notices sent to the MSRB are not fully disseminated to
the entire marketplace. By requiring delivery of such notices to all
NRMSIRs and appropriate SIDs, if any, the Commission preliminarily
believes that the completeness and consistency of information from
these repositories would be improved, thereby promoting efficiency and
having no adverse impacts on competition or capital formation. In fact,
competition to establish alternative delivery systems in the private
sector may be enhanced by the elimination of the MSRB as a single
filing location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ MSRB Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this analysis
and, in particular, on whether the proposed amendments to the Rule
would place a burden on competition, as well as the effect of the
proposed amendments on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, or ``SBREFA,'' \34\ we must advise the Office of
Management and Budget as to whether the proposed regulation constitutes
a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where,
if adopted, it results or is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more (either in the form of an
increase or a decrease); (2) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers or individual industries; or (3) significant adverse effect
on competition, investment or innovation. The Commission preliminarily
believes that this proposed amendment is not a major rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a rule is ``major,'' its effectiveness will generally be delayed
for 60 days pending Congressional review. We request comment on the
potential impact of the proposed rule on the economy on an annual
basis. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other
factual support for their view to the extent possible.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(``RFA''), the Commission hereby certifies that the proposed amendments
to the Rule, would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Under the RFA, the term
``small entity'' shall have the same meaning as the RFA defined

terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' According to Section 601(3) of the RFA,
``the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632), unless an agency, after consultation with the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.'' If the agency has not defined the term for a
particular purpose, the Small Business Act states that ``a small
business concern * * * shall be deemed to be one which is independently
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of
operation.'' The Section 601(4) of the RFA defines a ``small
organization'' to include ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' A
``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined by Section 601(5) of the
RFA to include ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.''
    It is likely that a substantial number of the Issuers required to
submit material event notices are small governmental jurisdictions
included in the RFA's definition of small entities. However, in this
regard, the proposed amendments to the Rule would either not require
any additional work for such small entities if they do not currently
send material event notices to the MSRB, or would simply require them
to send such notices to each of the (currently four) NRMSIRs. However,
the Commission believes that the cost of sending such notices to three
additional locales would be minimal because such notices are generally
short in length and would only encompass the additional costs of
copying several pages, as well as the minor additional mailing costs.
Finally, the Commission preliminarily believes that those Issuers that
currently send their material event notices to each NRMSIR as well as
the MSRB would reduce their costs because, under the proposed
amendments, the MSRB would no longer be available as a location to send
such notices. Thus, while the proposed amendments may impact a small
entity, such impact would likely not be significant.
    For the above reasons, the Commission certifies that the proposed
amendments to the Rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests
comments regarding this certification. The Commission requests that
commenters describe the nature of any impact on small businesses and
provide empirical data to support the extent of the impact.

X. Statutory Authority

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly Sections 3(b),
15(c), 15B and 23(a)(1) the Commission is proposing the amendments to
Sec.  240.15c2-12 of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations in the
manner set forth below.

Text of Proposed Rule

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

    1. The general authority citation for part 240 is revised to read
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i,
78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5,
78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4,
80b-11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
    2. Section 240.15c2-12 is amended by revising the introductory text
of paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) and paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(D) and (d)(2)(ii)(B)
to read as follows:

Sec.  240.15c2-12  Municipal securities disclosure.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) In a timely manner, to each nationally recognized municipal
securities information repository and to the appropriate state
information depository, if any, notice of any of the following events
with respect to the securities being offered in the Offering, if
material:
* * * * *
    (D) In a timely manner, to each nationally recognized municipal
securities information repository and to the appropriate state
information depository, if any, notice of a failure of any person
specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) of this section to provide required
annual financial information on or before the date specified in the
written agreement or contract.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) In a timely manner, to each nationally recognized municipal
securities information repository and to the appropriate state
information depository, if any, notice of events specified in paragraph
(b)(5)(i)(C) of this section with respect to the securities that are
the subject of the Offering, if material; and
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 4, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20829 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48766-48769]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22705]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157; FRL-9969-87-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a revision to
the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied
the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin
has also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of
its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the
progress report.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 19, 2017,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 20, 2017. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0157 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

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

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years
that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected
by emissions from within the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are
also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years
after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. EPA
approved Wisconsin's regional haze plan into its SIP on August 7, 2012,
77 FR 46952. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March
17, 2017. This is a report on progress made in the first implementation
period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Wisconsin. Wisconsin
does not have any Class I areas within its borders. This progress
report SIP included a determination that Wisconsin's existing regional
haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for
2018. EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's progress report on the
basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at 40
CFR 51.308.

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

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

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    The Regional Haze Rule provides the required elements for five-year
progress reports in 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds that Wisconsin
satisfied the 40 CFR 51.308(g) requirements with its progress report.
EPA finds that, with its negative declaration, Wisconsin also satisfied
the requirements for the determination of adequacy provided in 40 CFR
51.308(h).
    The following sections discuss the information provided by
Wisconsin in the progress report submission, along with EPA's analysis
and determination of whether the submission met the applicable
requirements of Sec.  51.308.

1. Status of Implementation of all Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Wisconsin summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were included in its 2012 regional
haze SIP. Specifically, the report addresses the status of the on-the-
books emissions reduction measures. The measures include applicable
Federal programs (e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule--CAIR, Cross State
Pollution Rule--CSAPR, on- and off-highway mobile source rules, area
source rules, point sources, Title IV programs, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) SIP Call, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards, Federal and State consent agreements, and Federal and State
control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs)). This summary
includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure.

    The State documents the implementation status of measures from its
regional haze SIP as well as describes significant measures resulting
from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they
pertain to the State's sources. The progress report SIP highlights the
effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and, when
possible, in the State. EPA finds that Wisconsin's analysis adequately
addresses the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control
requirements for sources in the State, Wisconsin's progress report
notes that two boilers at one facility, Green Bay Georgia Pacific, were
the only non-EGU emission units subject to BART requirements in
Wisconsin. BART requirements at Georgia Pacific reflected alternative
measures, which were incorporated into a federally enforceable
Administrative Consent Order dated July 9, 2013, effective January 1,
2016. For sources evaluated for reasonable progress in Wisconsin, the
State found no additional controls (beyond on-the-books controls) to be
reasonable for the first implementation period, so no other discussion
of the status of controls was necessary in the progress report SIP.
    Wisconsin describes the implementation status of measures from its
regional haze SIP, including the status of control measures to meet
BART and reasonable progress requirements and the status of measures
from on-the-book controls. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately
addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP.

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved in the State Through
Implementation of Measures

    In its regional haze SIP and progress report, Wisconsin focuses its
assessment on NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from EGUs as a result of the implementation of CAIR/CSAPR, as
well as emissions from non-EGUs. During the period from 2005-2015
SO2 emissions from EGUs and non-EGUs decreased in Wisconsin
by 74 percent according to data from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division
(CAMD). Additionally, NOX emissions decreased from EGUs and
non-EGUs by 55 percent during the same time period.
    The State provides estimates of reductions of NOX and
SO2 from EGUs and non-EGUs in Wisconsin that have occurred
since Wisconsin submitted its regional haze SIP. Given the large
NOX and SO2 reductions that have actually
occurred, further analysis of emissions from other sources or other
pollutants, was unnecessary in this first implementation period.
Because no additional controls were found to be reasonable for
reasonable progress for the first implementation period for evaluated
sources in Wisconsin, EPA finds that no further discussion of emissions
reductions from controls was necessary in the progress report. EPA
concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory
Class I Federal Area in the State

    Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries,
and as the applicable provisions pertain only to states containing
Class I areas, no further analysis is necessary. EPA concludes that
Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g).

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing
Pollutants

    In its progress report, Wisconsin presents data from a statewide
emissions inventory developed for the year 2005 and compares this with
a 2014 emissions inventory constructed by the Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) based on the National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) 2011 version 2 (2011 NEIv2) data. For both years, pollutants
inventoried include ammonia (NH3), NOX, coarse
particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), reactive organic gases (ROG), and SO2.
The emissions inventories from both the 2005 dataset and the 2014 NEIv2
include all point, area, on-road, off-road, animal and marine-aircraft-
rail (MAR).
    Table 1 below shows the emissions from 2005-2014 versus projected
2018 emissions from the 2012 Wisconsin regional haze SIP submission.
SO2 and NOX sources are the most impactful in
terms of visibility improvement. In the 2005 inventory, SO2
emissions were 260,556 tons per year (TPY) and were projected by 2018
to decrease to 133,039 TPY. In 2014, SO2 emission had
already decreased to 89,067 TPY, and achieved a 65.8 percent reduction.
NOX emissions were 349,336 TPY and were projected by 2018 to
decrease to 172,876 TPY. In 2014, NOX emission had already
decreased to 236,568 TPY, and achieved a 32.3 percent reduction.
Reductions of other pollutants exceeded the expected 2018 emissions.
    PM10 emissions increased from 2005 to 2014 by 8.4%. In
the 2012 Regional Haze SIP and the progress report, WI predicted this
increase, but it was deemed insignificant relative to the visibility
improvements from the large reductions of NOX and
SO2 emissions over those same time periods. NOX
and SO2 emissions reductions have a much greater impact on
visibility improvement.

                  Table 1--Emission Reductions: 2005 to 2014 vs Projected 2018 Emissions (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NH3          NOX          PM10        PM2.5         ROG          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Base from Haze SIP...........      123,260      349,336       60,494       53,143      299,230      260,556
2014..............................       39,642      236,568       65,576       50,278      258,611       89,067
2018 Target from Haze SIP.........      114,738      172,876       72,231       61,353      228,806      133,039
% change, 2005-2014...............       -67.8%       -32.3%         8.4%        -5.4%       -13.6%       -65.8%
% change, 2005-2018...............        -6.9%       -50.5%        19.4%        15.4%       -23.5%       -48.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report shows that emissions are gradually decreasing
from implementation of a variety of programs. EPA finds that Wisconsin
has satisfied this element requiring an analysis tracking emissions
progress for the current five-year period. Wisconsin appears to be on
track for reaching its 2018 emission projections. EPA concludes that
Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40
CFR 51.308.

5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions

    As demonstrated in the previous section, in its progress report,
Wisconsin notes that progress has been made in reductions in
visibility-impairing pollutants in the last five years. Wisconsin found
that no changes

either within or outside the State have occurred in the last five years
that would impede the achievement of necessary emission reductions or
would impede the improvement of visibility.
    Wisconsin indicated that no significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by Wisconsin sources. The progress
report identified an overall downward trend in these emissions.
Further, the progress report indicates that Wisconsin is on track to
meeting its 2018 emissions projections. EPA concludes that Wisconsin
has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient
To Enable Wisconsin, or Other States, To Meet RPGs

    The progress report indicates that the elements and strategies
outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable
Wisconsin and states where Wisconsin contributes to visibility
impairments to meet all of the established RPGs. The original regional
haze SIP identified several sources in Wisconsin that contribute to
visibility impairment at Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas in
Michigan. Wisconsin determined that implementation of control measures
at these sources and associated significant downward trends in
emissions, as discussed previously, demonstrate that Wisconsin is not
interfering with the ability of these Class I areas to meet reasonable
progress goals.
    EPA finds that Wisconsin's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of
the regional haze SIP is supported by the progress report from Michigan
showing improved visibility at the Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas.
EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

7. Review of the State's Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    Wisconsin's progress report confirms there are no Class I areas
within its borders. Because Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas
within its borders, Wisconsin is not required to address the applicable
provisions related to review of the State's visibility monitoring
strategy. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the Adequacy of Existing
Implementation Plan
    The rule at 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires the State to submit its
determination of adequacy for the regional haze plan at the same time
as the progress report. The rule requires the State to select from four
options based on the information given in the progress report.
    Wisconsin submitted a negative declaration indicating that further
substantive revision of its regional haze plan is not needed at this
time. Wisconsin determined that its regional haze plan is adequate to
meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects to achieve the
reasonable progress goals at Isle Royale and Seney.
    EPA finds that the current Wisconsin regional haze plan is adequate
to achieve its established goals. Based on its progress report,
Wisconsin is on track to meet the visibility improvement and emission
reduction goals.
Public Participation and Federal Land Manager Consultation
    On December 12, 2016 Wisconsin provided an opportunity for Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) to review Wisconsin's report on progress made
during the first implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas
outside the State that are affected by emissions from Wisconsin's
sources. Wisconsin's progress report includes in Appendix 5, the FLMs
comments and the State's response to comments.
    Wisconsin also published notification for a public hearing and
solicitation for full public comment concerning the draft five-year
progress report. A public hearing was held on February 14, 2017. No
comments were received and no testimony was provided.
    EPA finds that Wisconsin has addressed the applicable requirements
in Sec.  51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the regional haze progress report submitted on
March 17, 2017, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA finds that
Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g). EPA also finds that Wisconsin has met the 40 CFR 51.308(h)
requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze
plan with its negative declaration submitted on March 17, 2017.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 19,
2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by November 20, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Public
comments will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 19,
2017.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Add Sec.  52.2593 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2593  Visibility protection.

    (a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on
January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. The Wisconsin regional
haze plan meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the
Regional Haze Rule in Sec.  51.308.
    (b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on
March 17, 2017. The Progress Report meets the requirements of Clean Air
Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in Sec.  51.308.
[FR Doc. 2017-22705 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58417-58419]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8828; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-13]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Texas
Towns; Levelland, TX; Vernon, TX; and Winters, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Levelland Municipal Airport,
Levelland, TX; Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX; and Winters
Municipal Airport, Winters, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional
radio beacon (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation
of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates
at Levelland Municipal Airport and Wilbarger County Airport would be
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-8828; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use

of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX;
Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX; and Winters Municipal Airport,
Winters, TX.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8828/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface:
    Within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 6.7-mile radius) of
Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX, and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile radius) of
Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX, and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    And within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of
Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX, with an extension to the north
of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles, and with a new
extension to the south of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.6
miles.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV
procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures
for IFR operations at the airports.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Levelland, TX [Amended]

Levelland Municipal, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]33'09'' N., long. 102[deg]22'21'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Levelland Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Vernon, TX [Amended]

Wilbarger County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 34[deg]13'32'' N., long. 99[deg]17'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Wilbarger County Airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Winters, TX [Amended]

Winters Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]56'50'' N., long. 99[deg]59'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Winters Municipal Airport, and 1 mile
each side of the 352[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 6.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles north of the airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 180[deg] bearing from the airport from the
6.6-mile radius to 9.6 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 17, 2016.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-20152 Filed 8-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P