[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53456-53457]
[DOCID:fr16se08-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(c), SEC File No. 270-35, OMB Control No. 3235-0029

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of Rule 17f-2(c).
 Rule 17f-2(c) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(c))
    Rule 17f-2(c) allows persons required to be fingerprinted pursuant
to Section 17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to submit
their fingerprints through a registered securities exchange or a
national securities association in accordance with a plan submitted to
and approved by the Commission. The Commission has approved such plans
for several exchanges and for the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').
    It is estimated that 5,984 respondents submit approximately 368,000
fingerprint cards to exchanges or a national securities association on
an annual basis. The Commission estimates that it would take
approximately 15 minutes to create and submit each fingerprint card.
The total reporting burden is therefore estimated to be 92,000 hours,
or approximately 15 hours per respondent, annually. In addition, the
exchanges and FINRA charge an estimated $30 fee for processing
fingerprint cards, resulting in a total annual cost to all 5,984
respondents of $11,040,000, or $1,845 per respondent per year.
    Because the Federal Bureau of Investigation will not accept
fingerprint cards directly from submitting organizations, Commission
approval of plans from certain exchanges and national securities
associations is essential to the Congressional goal of fingerprint
personnel in the security industry. The filing of these plans for
review assures users and their personnel that fingerprint cards will be
handled responsibly and with due care for confidentiality.
    Submission of fingerprint plans under Rule 17f-2(c) is mandatory
for self-regulatory organizations. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: Kimberly_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or by
sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted
to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21531 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36707-36713]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16484]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0462; FRL-9965-68-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KDAQ) on September 17, 2014.
Kentucky's September 17, 2014, SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to
approve Kentucky's determination that the Commonwealth's regional haze
plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.

DATE:  Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0462 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the state and
for each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The progress
report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. Kentucky submitted its regional haze plan on June 25, 2008, as
later amended in a SIP revision submitted on May 28, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
    \2\ Throughout this document, references to Kentucky's
``regional haze plan'' refer to Kentucky's original June 25, 2008,
regional haze SIP submittal, as later amended in a SIP revision
submitted on May 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), Kentucky relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the Commonwealth.\3\
This reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that
Kentucky developed its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005). However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to

EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR
and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in
CSAPR-subject states.\4\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin
on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at
the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending
resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer
CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR required certain states, including Kentucky, to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \4\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern
United States that significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of Kentucky's
regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in
40 CFR 51.300-308. Also in this March 30, 2012, action, EPA finalized a
limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan because of
deficiencies arising from the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to
satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77 FR 19098. On June 7,
2012, EPA promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Kentucky's regional haze plan. See 77 FR
33642. Following additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA
began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
    On September 17, 2014, Kentucky submitted its Progress Report
which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first
period toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the
Commonwealth's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured
at Mammoth Cave National Park (Mammoth Cave), the only Class I area
within Kentucky, and at Class I areas outside of the Commonwealth
potentially impacted by emissions from Kentucky; and a determination of
the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing regional haze plan. EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky's September 17, 2014, Progress Report for
the reasons discussed below.

II. EPA's Evaluation of Kentucky's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes EPA's analysis of Kentucky's Progress Report,
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
    In its Progress Report, Kentucky summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by Kentucky in its
regional haze plan and included in the final iteration of the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the
Commonwealth in developing its regional haze plan. The measures
include, among other things, applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile
source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), Federal
consent agreements, and Federal control strategies for EGUs. Kentucky
also reviewed the status of BART requirements for the five BART-subject
sources for particulate matter (PM) in the Commonwealth--American
Electric Power (AEP) Big Sandy Plant, E.ON U.S Mill Creek Station, East
Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) Cooper Station, EKPC Spurlock
Station, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Paradise Plant--and
described the court decisions addressing CAIR and CSAPR at the time of
progress report development.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Kentucky Progress Report, pp. 33-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, a number of states, including Kentucky,
submitted regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited disapproval of
Kentucky's regional haze plan due to this reliance and promulgated a
FIP to replace the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR. Although a number of parties challenged the legality of CSAPR
and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the
United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on
April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve
remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the
D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is now in
effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir.
2015). Kentucky notes in its Progress Report that it has an EPA-
approved CAIR SIP and that CAIR was in effect at the time of Progress
Report submittal due to the 2011 CSAPR stay. Because CSAPR should
result in greater emissions reductions of SO2 and
NOX than CAIR throughout the affected region, EPA expects
Kentucky to maintain and continue its progress towards its RPGs for
2018 through continued, and additional, SO2 and
NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    The Commonwealth also discusses in its Progress Report the status
of several measures that were not included in the final VISTAS
emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional
haze plan to meet RPGs. These measures include EPA's Mercury and Air
Toxics Rule, three Federal consent decrees, and planned retirements and
fuel switching at several EGUs in Kentucky. The Commonwealth notes that
the emissions reductions from these measures will help ensure that
Class I areas impacted by Kentucky sources achieve their RPGs.
    In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, Kentucky focuses its
assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS'
findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87 percent of the
visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and roughly 82
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution at Mammoth Cave National
Park on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Although Kentucky
determined in its regional haze plan that no additional controls for
sources in the Commonwealth were needed to make reasonable progress for
SO2 during the first implementation period,\6\ Kentucky's
Progress Report identifies the control status of eight out-of-state
EGUs, six from Indiana and two from Tennessee, located in the area of
influence of Kentucky's Class I area using the Commonwealth's
methodology for determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress
control determination. Because these eight EGUs were subject to CAIR
and Mammoth Cave National Park was projected to exceed the uniform rate
of progress during the first implementation period, KDAQ opted not to
request from Indiana and Tennessee any additional emissions reductions
for reasonable progress for the first implementation period.\7\
Kentucky's Progress Report indicates that SO2 emissions from
these eight out-of-state EGUs have decreased by nearly 50 percent from
2002 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 76 FR 78204.
    \7\ See 76 FR 78213 and Kentucky Progress Report, p. 37.

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

    In addition, the Commonwealth provides an update on the control
status of EGUs in Kentucky identified by Maine, New Jersey, New
Hampshire, and Vermont as contributing to visibility impairment at
Class I areas located in those states based on 2002 emissions. These
states are members of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU), which identified 167 EGU ``stacks,'' 10 of which are in
Kentucky, as contributing significantly to visibility impairment at
MANE-VU Class I areas in 2002. The 10 EGU stacks are located at: Duke
Energy's East Bend plant; EKPC's Cooper and Spurlock plants; AEP Big
Sandy plant; E.ON U.S. E.W. Brown, Ghent, and Mill Creek plants; and
TVA Paradise. MANE-VU asked Kentucky to control the SO2
emissions from these EGUs with a 90 percent control efficiency and to
adopt a control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from non-EGU emission sources that would be
equivalent to MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil
strategy.
    In its Progress Report, the Commonwealth notes that the Kentucky
EGUs identified by MANE-VU either have or will have scrubbers with a
minimum SO2 control efficiency of 90 percent or are
scheduled for retirement by 2018. Kentucky also notes that there was a
decrease of 196,753 tons in SO2 emissions from 2002 to 2012
\8\ at these EGUs and that planned retirements at these EGUs will
result in an additional SO2 emissions decrease of 30,845
tons by 2018 from these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 15, pp.62-65. The emissions
reductions are based on data from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division
provided in the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the Commonwealth
described the implementation of measures within Kentucky, including
BART at BART-subject sources for PM.
2. Emissions Reductions
    As discussed above, Kentucky focused its assessment in its regional
haze plan and Progress Report on SO2 emissions from EGUs
because of VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states. In
its Progress Report, Kentucky provides SO2 emissions data
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for each coal-fired EGU in
the Commonwealth. Actual SO2 emissions reductions from 2002
to 2012 for these Kentucky EGUs (300,335 tons) have already exceeded
the projected SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018
estimated in Kentucky's regional haze plan for these EGUs (261,234
tons).\9\ Kentucky also includes cumulative SO2 and
NOX CAMD emissions data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in the
Commonwealth subject to reporting under the Acid Rain Program. This
data shows a decline in these emissions over this time period and shows
that the SO2 reductions are greater than those estimated for
these units between 2002-2018 in the Commonwealth's regional haze plan.
The emissions reductions identified by Kentucky are due, in part, to
the implemenation of measures included in the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan (e.g., CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 14, pp. 53-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions because the Commonwealth identifies SO2 emissions
reductions from EGUs in Kentucky, the largest sources of SO2
emissions in the Commonwealth.
3. Visibility Conditions
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values.
    Kentucky's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for Mammoth Cave. Kentucky reported current visibility
conditions as both the 2006-2010 and 2009-2013 five-year time periods
and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I area.\10\ Table
1, below, shows the visibility conditions for both the 2006-2010 and
2009-2013 five-year time periods and the difference between these
current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).

       Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Kentucky's Class I Area
                                                   [deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline (2000- Current (2006-                   More current
          Class I area                 2004)           2010)        Difference      (2009-2013)     Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Cave National Park......           31.37           29.09           -2.28           25.09           -6.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Cave National Park......           16.51           15.41           -1.10           13.69           -2.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, Mammoth Cave saw an improvement in visibility
between baseline and the 2006-2010 and 2009-2013 time periods.\11\
Kentucky also reported 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day
visibility data for Mammoth Cave from 2006-2013 for each year in terms
of five-year averages.\12\ This data shows an improvement in visibility
at Mammoth Cave on the 20 percent best days from 2006-2013 and on the
20 percent worst days from 2007-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Kentucky Progress Report, Tables 17 and 18, pp. 67-68.
    \12\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 18, p.68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that Kentucky's original RPGs were based on the VISTAS
modeling run available at the time of Kentucky's June 25, 2008,
regional haze plan. In 2008, VISTAS provided updated modeling results
that changed the modeled progress for Kentucky's Class I area. Table 2
identifies the RPGs for Mammoth Cave in the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan and provides, for comparison purposes only, the updated RPGs
provided by VISTAS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 16, p. 66.

            Table 2--Updated RPGs for Kentucky's Class I Area
                               [deciviews]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           RPG 20% worst   RPG 20% best
 Class I area Mammoth Cave National Park       days            days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original RPGs...........................           25.56           15.57
Updated RPGs............................           25.40           15.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility
conditions because the Commonwealth provided baseline visibility
conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently
available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress
Report development, the difference between these current sets of
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the
change in visibility impairment from 2006-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
    In its Progress Report, Kentucky presents data from a statewide
actual emissions inventory for 2007 and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual and typical
emissions).\14\ The pollutants inventoried include VOC, NH3,
NOX, PM2.5, coarse particulate matter
(PM10), and SO2. The emissions inventories
include the following source classifications: point, area, fires, non-
road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. As discussed in Section
II.A.2, above, Kentucky also presented NOX and
SO2 data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For the typical 2002 stationary point source emissions
inventory, the EGU emissions are adjusted for a typical year so that
if sources were shut down or are operating above or below normal,
the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions inventory year.
The typical year data is used to develop projected typical future
year emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kentucky estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007
inventory using EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher
emissions for NOX and PM than its previous counterpart,
EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, used by the Commonwealth to estimate on-road
mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Despite the change in
methodology, with the exception of a slight increase in
PM2.5 and PM10, 2007 actual emissions are lower
for all inventoried emissions than both the actual and typical 2002
emissions, as can be seen when comparing Tables 3 and 4 to Table 5.

                                              Table 3--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                           NH 3             NOX            PM10            PM2.5            SO2             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           1,000         237,209          21,326          14,173         518,086          46,321
Area....................................................          51,135          39,507         233,559          45,453          41,805          95,375
On-Road Mobile..........................................           5,055         156,417           3,723           2,697           6,308         103,503
Non-Road Mobile.........................................              31         104,571           6,425           6,046          14,043          44,805
Fires...................................................              44           1,142           5,226           5,074              49           2,640
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          57,265         538,846         270,259          73,443         580,291         292,644
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             Table 4--2002 Typical Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                           NH 3             NOX            PM10            PM2.5            SO2             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................             995         240,362          21,421          14,219         529,182          46,315
Area....................................................          51,135          39,507         233,559          45,453          41,805          95,375
On-Road Mobile..........................................           5,055         156,417           3,723           2,697           6,308         103,503
Non-Road Mobile.........................................              31         104,517           6,425           6,046          14,043          44,805
Fires...................................................             110           1,460           6,667           6,310             136           3,338
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          57,326         542,317         271,795          74,725         591,474         293,336
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Table 5--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Kentucky
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            NH3             NOX            PM10            PM2.5            SO2             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................             113         210,213          30,678          21,110         410,413          47,679
Area....................................................          52,332          12,693         226,829          40,341          15,590          75,100
On-Road Mobile..........................................           2,172         133,425           5,524           4,363           1,022          55,883
Non-Road Mobile.........................................              46          63,454           4,207           3,969           3,037          38,785
Fires...................................................             138           1,377           5,016           4,678             180           2,939
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total...............................................          54,801         421,163         272,254          74,461         430,242         220,386
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that Kentucky adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
Commonwealth compared the most recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of Progress Report development with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Kentucky evaluated available CAMD SO2 emissions data from
2002 to 2012 for Kentucky EGUs because this data was available at the
time of Progress Report development, ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states, and
EGUs are the largest source of SO2 in the Commonwealth.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    In its Progress Report, Kentucky documented that sulfates, which
are formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest
single contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the
Commonwealth and therefore focused its analysis on large SO2
emissions from point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5), Kentucky demonstrates that sulfate contributions to
visibility impairment have decreased overall from 2000 to 2013 \15\
along with an improvement in visibility, and examines other potential
pollutants of concern affecting visibility at Mammoth Cave. The
Commonwealth presents data for the 20 percent worst days showing that
ammonium sulfate is responsible for 79.6 and 67.8 percent of the
regional haze at Mammoth Cave for the periods 2006-2010 and 2009-2013,
respectively. For 2006-2010, primary organic matter is the next largest
contributor at 9.3 percent whereas for 2009-2013, the next largest
contributor to regional haze is ammonium nitrate at 13.9 percent,
followed by primary organic matter at 11.7 percent. Furthermore, the
Progress Report shows that the Commonwealth is on track to meeting its
2018 RPGs for Mammoth Cave and that SO2 emissions reductions
from 2002-2012 for EGUs in Kentucky have exceeded the projected
reductions from 2002-2018 in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Kentucky Progress Report, Figures 21 and 22, p. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions. EPA preliminarily agrees with
Kentucky's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants which have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the Commonwealth's sources.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    The Commonwealth believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs
for Mammoth Cave and will not impede Class I areas outside of Kentucky
from meeting their RPGs based on the trends in visibility and emissions
presented in its Progress Report. Kentucky notes that the IMPROVE
visibility readings for 2009-2013 already show greater improvments in
visibility than projected by Kentucky in establishing the 2018 RPGs for
Mammoth Cave and that SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs in
the Commonwealth have fallen from 2002 to 2012 by more than than the
predicted decline in SO2 emissions from these sources for
the first planning period in Kentucky's regional haze plan. Kentucky
expects that these emissions will continue to decrease through the
first regional haze implementation period. The Commonwealth identifies
additional SO2 reductions of 49,649 tpy from Kentucky EGUs
that are retiring or converting to natural gas which were not accounted
for in the original 2018 emissions projections in its regional haze
plan.\16\ Kentucky also provides data showing that SO2
emissions from 2002 to 2012 from EGUs outside of the Commonwealth
impacting visibility at Mammoth Cave have decreased by nearly 49
percent (65,416 tpy). In addition, the Commonwealth provides emissions
data in Table 13 and in Figures 10 and 12 of its Progress Report
showing a declining trend in SO2 and NOX
emissions from 2002 to 2012 for EGUs in Kentucky and the VISTAS states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 11, pp. 42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kentucky also provides updated visibility analyses for Mammoth Cave
and the Class I areas outside the Commonwealth potentially impacted by
sources in Kentucky (Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North
Carolina and Tennessee, James River Face Wilderness Area and Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area in North
Carolina, and Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West Virginia), and notes
that these analyses show that these areas are on track to achieve their
RPGs by 2018.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Kentucky Progress Report, Table 26, p. 87; Figures 23-32,
pp. 82-86; Figures 14 and 15, pp. 69-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section II.A.1, above, CAIR was implemented during
the time period evaluated by Kentucky for its Progress Report, but has
now been replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, the requirements of
CSAPR apply to sources in Kentucky under the terms of a FIP because
Kentucky has not, to date, incorporated the CSAPR requirements into its
SIP. Kentuky's regional haze plan accordingly does not contain
sufficient provisions to ensure that the RPGs of Class I areas in
nearby states will be achieved. The term ``implementation plan,''
however, is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean
``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
Measures in any issued FIP, as well as those in a state's regional haze
SIP, may therefore be considered in assessing the adequacy of the
``existing implementation plan.''
    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its Progress Report, Kentucky described the improving visibility trends
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends
in key pollutants, with a focus on SO2 emissions from EGUs
in the Commonwealth. Kentucky determined that its regional haze plan is
sufficient to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area and the Class I
areas outside the Commonwealth potentially impacted by the emissions
from Kentucky. EPA finds that Kentucky's conclusion regarding the
sufficiency of its regional haze plan is appropriate because CAIR was
in effect in Kentucky through 2014, providing the emission reductions
relied upon in Kentucky's regional haze

plan through that date. CSAPR is now being implemented, and by 2018,
the end of the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs in
Kentucky by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the FIP for
the Commonwealth in June 2012 replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance
on CSAPR. Because CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions relied upon by Kentucky and other
states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at least through
the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky's finding that the plan elements and
strategies in its implementation plan are sufficient to achieve the
RPGs for the Class I area in the Commonwealth and for Class I areas in
nearby states potentially impacted by sources in the Commonwealth.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    In its Progress Report, Kentucky summarizes the existing monitoring
network in Kentucky to monitor visibility at Mammoth Cave and concludes
that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy
are necessary. The primary monitoring network for regional haze, both
nationwide and in Kentucky, is the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. There is currently one IMPROVE
site located in Mammoth Cave National Park.
    The Commonwealth also explains the importance of the IMPROVE
monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I area
in Kentucky. Kentucky states that data produced by the IMPROVE
monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the
regional haze progress reports and SIP revisions, and thus, the
monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible
and to be kept up to date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web
System Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional
Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and
data analysis tools.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term
limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides
additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Kentucky
benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible
for associated funding decisions to maintain these measurements into
the future.
    In addition, KDAQ operates a PM2.5 network of filter-
based Federal reference method monitors and filter-based speciation
monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help the KDAQ
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the Commonwealth, and
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near
Mammoth Cave.
    EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding monitoring strategy
because the Commonwealth reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report, Kentucky submitted a negative declaration
to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emissions
reductions in Kentucky beyond those already in place and those to be
implemented by 2018 according to Kentucky's regional haze plan.
Kentucky determined that the existing regional haze plan requires no
further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class
I areas affected by the Commonwealth's sources. The Commonwealth's
negative declaration is based on the findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: visibility has already improved at Mammoth
Cave in Kentucky such that monitored 2009-2013 visibility readings show
that the Class I area has already met its RPGs for 2018; actual
SO2 emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs in Kentucky
exceed the predicted reductions in Kentucky's regional haze plan;
additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the Commonwealth's
regional haze plan have occurred or will occur during the first
implementation period that will further reduce SO2
emissions; and emissions of SO2 from EGUs in Kentucky and
the surrounding VISTAS states are expected to continue to trend
downward.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Kentucky has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at Mammoth Cave and at
Class I areas outside of the Commonwealth potentially impacted by
sources within Kentucky and the emissions trends of the largest
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants in the Commonwealth
indicate that the relevant RPGs will be met.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's September 17, 2014, Regional
Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 25, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-16484 Filed 8-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54934-54941]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21642]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9447; 34-70298/August 30, 2013]

Order Making Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Adjustments to Registration
Fee Rates

I. Background

    The Commission collects fees under various provisions of the
securities laws. Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') requires the Commission to collect fees from
issuers on the registration of securities.\1\ Section 13(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') requires the
Commission to collect fees on specified repurchases of securities.\2\
Section 14(g) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect
fees on proxy solicitations and statements in corporate control
transactions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78n(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act of 2002 (``Fee
Relief Act'') \4\ required the Commission to make annual adjustments to
the fee rates applicable under these sections for each of the fiscal
years 2003 through 2011 in an attempt to generate collections equal to
yearly targets specified in the statute.\5\ Under the Fee Relief Act,
each year's fee rate was announced on the preceding April 30, and took
effect five days after the date of enactment of the Commission's
regular appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 107-123, 115 Stat. 2390 (2002).
    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(5), 77f(b)(6), 78m(e)(5), 78m(e)(6),
78n(g)(5) and 78n(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') \6\ changed many of the provisions related to
these fees. The Dodd-Frank Act created new annual collection targets
for FY 2012 and thereafter. It also changed the date by which the
Commission must announce a new fiscal year's fee rate (August 31) and
the date on which the new rate takes effect (October 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat.1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rate

    Section 6(b)(2) of the Securities Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank
Act, requires the Commission to make an annual adjustment to the fee
rate applicable under Section 6(b).\7\ The annual adjustment to the fee
rate under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act also sets the annual
adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the
Exchange Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(2). The annual adjustments are designed to
adjust the fee rate in a given fiscal year so that, when applied to
the aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are
proposed to be offered for the fiscal year, it is reasonably likely
to produce total fee collections under Section 6(b) equal to the
``target fee collection amount'' specified in Section 6(b)(6)(A) for
that fiscal year.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 78n(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(b)(2) sets forth the method for determining the annual
adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) for fiscal year 2014.
Specifically, the Commission must adjust the fee rate under Section
6(b) to a ``rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering prices for [fiscal year 2014], is reasonably
likely to produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 6(b)] that
are equal to the target fee collection amount for [fiscal year 2014].''
That is, the adjusted rate is determined by dividing the ``target fee
collection amount'' for fiscal year 2014 by the ``baseline estimate of
the aggregate maximum offering prices'' for fiscal year 2014.
    Section 6(b)(6)(A) specifies that the ``target fee collection
amount'' for fiscal year 2014 is $485,000,000. Section 6(b)(6)(B)
defines the ``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering
price'' for fiscal year 2014 as ``the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be
offered pursuant to registration statements filed with the Commission
during [fiscal year 2014] as determined by the Commission, after
consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget. . . .''

    To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering
price for fiscal year 2014, the Commission used a methodology similar
to that developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office
(``CBO'') and Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') to project the
aggregate offering price for purposes of the fiscal year 2012 annual
adjustment (and identical to the methodology employed during fiscal
year 2013).\9\ Using this methodology, the Commission determines the
``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for
fiscal year 2014 to be $3,766,638,654,272.\10\ Based on this estimate,
the Commission calculates the fee rate for fiscal 2014 to be $128.80
per million. This adjusted fee rate applies to Section 6(b) of the
Securities Act, as well as to Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the fiscal year 2011 estimate, the Commission used a
ten-year series of monthly observations ending in March 2011. For
fiscal year 2012, the Commission used a ten-year series ending in
July 2011. For fiscal year 2013, the Commission used a ten-year
series ending in July 2012. For fiscal year 2014, the Commission
used a ten-year series ending in July 2013.
    \10\ Appendix A explains how we determined the ``baseline
estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for fiscal year
2014 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical
process of calculating the fiscal year 2014 annual adjustment based
on that estimate. The appendix includes the data used by the
Commission in making its ``baseline estimate of the aggregate
maximum offering price'' for fiscal year 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Effective Dates of the Annual Adjustments

    The fiscal year 2014 annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable
under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g)
of the Exchange Act will be effective on October 1, 2013.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(6) and 15 U.S.C.
78n(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and
Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act,\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b), 78m(e) and 78n(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is hereby ordered that the fee rates applicable under Section
6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act shall be $128.80 per million effective on October 1, 2013.

By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

Appendix A

    With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Congress has, among other things,
established a target amount of monies to be collected from fees
charged to issuers based on the value of their registrations. This
appendix provides the formula for determining such fees, which the
Commission adjusts annually. Congress has mandated that the
Commission determine these fees based on the ``aggregate maximum
offering prices,'' which measures the aggregate dollar amount of
securities registered with the Commission over the course of the
year. In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of monies
targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set to
reflect projected aggregate maximum offering prices. As a
percentage, the fee rate equals the ratio of the target amounts of
monies to the projected aggregate maximum offering prices.
    For 2014, the Commission has estimated the aggregate maximum
offering prices by projecting forward the trend established in the
previous decade. More specifically, an ARIMA model was used to
forecast the value of the aggregate maximum offering prices for
months subsequent to July 2013, the last month for which the
Commission has data on the aggregate maximum offering prices.
    The following sections describe this process in detail.

A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Maximum Offering Prices for
Fiscal Year 2014

    First, calculate the aggregate maximum offering prices (AMOP)
for each month in the sample (July 2003-July 2013). Next, calculate
the percentage change in the AMOP from month to month.
    Model the monthly percentage change in AMOP as a first order
moving average process. The moving average approach allows one to
model the effect that an exceptionally high (or low) observation of
AMOP tends to be followed by a more ``typical'' value of AMOP.
    Use the estimated moving average model to forecast the monthly
percent change in AMOP. These percent changes can then be applied to
obtain forecasts of the total dollar value of registrations. The
following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the
procedure:
    1. Begin with the monthly data for AMOP. The sample spans ten
years, from July 2003 to July 2013.
    2. Divide each month's AMOP (column C) by the number of trading
days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily AMOP
(AAMOP, column D).
    3. For each month t, the natural logarithm of AAMOP is reported
in column E.
    4. Calculate the change in log(AAMOP) from the previous month as
[Delta]t = log(AAMOPt) -
log(AAMOPt-1). This approximates the percentage change.
    5. Estimate the first order moving average model
[Delta]t = [alpha] + [beta]et-1 +
et , where et denotes the forecast error for
month t. The forecast error is simply the difference between the
one-month ahead forecast and the actual realization of
[Delta]t . The forecast error is expressed as
et = [Delta]t - [alpha] -
[beta]et-1. The model can be estimated using standard
commercially available software. Using least squares, the estimated
parameter values are [alpha] = -0.0003334 and [beta] = -0.90946.
    6. For the month of August 2013 forecast
[Delta]t = 8[sol]12 = [alpha] +
[beta]et = 7/12. For all subsequent months, forecast
[Delta]t = [alpha].
    7. Calculate forecasts of log(AAMOP). For example, the forecast
of log(AAMOP) for October 2013 is given by
FLAAMOPt=10[sol]12 = log(AAMOPt=&7/12) +
[Delta]t=8/12 + [Delta]t=9/12 +
[Delta]t=10/12.
    8. Under the assumption that et is normally
distributed, the n-step ahead forecast of AAMOP is given by
exp(FLAAMOPt + [sigma]n\2\/2), where
[sigma]n denotes the standard error of the n-step ahead
forecast.
    9. For October 2013, this gives a forecast AAMOP of $14.93
billion (Column I), and a forecast AMOP of $343.4 billion (Column
J).
    10. Iterate this process through September 2014 to obtain a
baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices for
fiscal year 2014 of $3,766,638,654,272.

B. Using the Forecasts From A To Calculate the New Fee Rate

    1. Using the data from Table A, estimate the aggregate maximum
offering prices between 10/1/13 and 9/30/14 to be
$3,766,638,654,272.
    2. The rate necessary to collect the target $485,000,000 in fee
revenues set by Congress is then calculated as: $485,000,000 /
$3,766,638,654,272 = 0.000128762.
    3. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a
rate of 0.0001288 (or $128.80 per million).

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06SE13.005

[FR Doc. 2013-21642 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7489-7490]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55262; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Amend CBOE Rules Relating to
CBOE's Determination to Trade Options on the NASDAQ 100 Index (NDX) on
the Hybrid 2.0 Platform and Options on the S&P 100 (XEO) on the Hybrid
Trading System

February 8, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 26, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change on February 7, 2007. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules relating to CBOE's determination
to trade options on the NASDAQ 100 Index (NDX) on the Hybrid 2.0
Platform and options on the S&P 100 (XEO) on the Hybrid Trading System.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 in
connection with CBOE's determination to trade options on the NASDAQ 100
Index (NDX) on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform.\5\ Additionally, CBOE proposes
to amend Rule 8.3 in connection with CBOE's determination to trade
options on the S&P 100 (XEO) on the Hybrid Trading System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa) defines Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid
2.0 Platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDX currently has an appointment cost of 1.0. CBOE intends to lower
NDX's appointment cost to .50 when NDX trades on the Hybrid 2.0
Platform. As a result, NDX will be classified in Tier AA. CBOE intends
to trade NDX on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform beginning on February 6, 2007.
    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3(c)(ii) to specifically reference
XEO as an option class trading on the Hybrid Trading System.\6\
Presently, XEO and options on the S&P 100 (OEX) collectively have an
appointment cost of 1.0. CBOE proposes to maintain the same appointment
cost when XEO trades on the Hybrid Trading System. CBOE intends to
trade XEO on the Hybrid Trading System beginning on January 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Reference to XEO will also be deleted in the table listing
the non-Hybrid option classes and their related appointment costs.
(See Rule 8.3(c)(iv).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\
which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
\10\ thereunder because it does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; (iii) become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission

written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\11\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative date, so that the proposal
may take effect on January 30, 2007 for XEO options and on February 6,
2007 for NDX options. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change does not raise any new regulatory issues. The Commission agrees
and, consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, has determined to waive the 30-day operative date, which
renders the proposal effective on January 30, 2007 for XEO options and
on February 6, 2007 for NDX options.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the self-regulatory
organization to give the Commission notice of its intention to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at leave five business days prior to the
date of filing the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
designated by the Commission. CBOE has satisfied the five-day
prefiling requirement.
    \12\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-09 and should be
submitted on or before March 8, 2007.

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

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2612 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8147-8148]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2017-0025]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The DOT invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an
information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under
procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before
seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on
proposed collections of information, including extensions and
reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2017-0025] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
    Instructions: Submissions must include the agency name and docket
number for this proposed collection of information. Note all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs (NRM-310),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W43-439, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information.
    The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques,
or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Consolidated Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
and Procedures for Selecting Lines to Be Covered by The Theft
Prevention Standard.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0539.
    Type of Request: Requested Expiration Date of Approval.
    Abstract: For 49 CFR parts 541 and 542:
    49 CFR Part 541: The Theft Act requires specified parts of high-
theft vehicles to be marked with vehicle identification numbers. All
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and light duty trucks with major
parts that are interchangeable with the majority of the covered major
parts of passenger motor vehicles covered by the standard are required
to be parts-marked.
    49 CFR Part 542: Manufacturers of light duty trucks must identify
new model introductions that are likely to be high-theft vehicle lines
as defined in 49 U.S.C. 33104. The specific vehicle lines are to be
selected by agreement between the manufacturer and the agency. NHTSA's
procedures for selecting high-theft vehicle lines are contained in 49
CFR part 542.
    Affected Public: Vehicle manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 23.
    Frequency: Intermittently.
    Number of Responses: 25.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150,550.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $55,143,430 (approximately
$55.1 million).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35; and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-03681 Filed 2-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 41273]
[DOCID:fr15jy10-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Fineline Holdings, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

July 13, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Fineline Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 13, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on July 26, 2010.

By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17359 Filed 7-13-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 57642]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20060]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78598; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Amending Rules 340, 341, and 359 To Extend the Time Within Which
a Member, Member Organization, or an ATP Holder Must File a Uniform
Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (``U5'')

August 17, 2016.
    On June 16, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rules 340, 341, and 359
to extend the time within which a member, member organization, or an
ATP Holder must file a U5. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on July 7, 2016.\3\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal and a response to the
comments from NYSE MKT LLC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78198 (June 30,
2016), 81 FR 44363.
    \4\ See letter from Judith Shaw, President, North American
Securities Administrators Association, Inc., to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated August 3, 2016
and letter from Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
SEC, dated August 12, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 21, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the comment received and the response to
the comment regarding the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates
October 5, 2016, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20060 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P