[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51663-51666]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16440]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0014; FRL-10012-93-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Emissions From Production
of Pesticides and Herbicides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
its rule related to control of emissions from production of pesticides
and herbicides in the Kansas City area. This final action will amend
the SIP to remove certain provisions from the rule, consolidate
requirements, include incorporations by reference and revise
restrictive language. The EPA's approval of these rule revisions is
being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0014. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Stone, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving revisions to 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR)
10-2.320, Control of Emissions from Production of Pesticides and
Herbicides in the Missouri SIP. Missouri made several revisions to the
rule. These revisions are described in detail in the technical support
document (TSD) included in the docket for this action. The EPA is
finalizing this action because the revisions to these rules meet the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from August 1, 2018
to September 30, 2018 and received fourteen comments on the two rules.
Missouri responded to all comments. As stated in the TSD for this
action, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule was open from
February 4, 2020 through March 5, 2020. During this period, EPA
received several comments from two commenters.

Comments From Center for Biological Diversity and Center for
Environmental Health

    Comment: The Center for Biological Diversity and Center for
Environmental Health made several comments in their comment letter
related to language that had been previously approved into the SIP when
it was approved in 1989. See 54 FR 10322 (March 13, 1989) and 54 FR
46232 (November 2, 1989). The commenters raise the following issues:
(1) The sources covered by the rule; (2) the sufficiency of the
monitoring and recordkeeping provisions; and (3) the legal sufficiency
of language related to the director's review of records kept by subject
sources.
    Response: EPA appreciates the comments on the proposal, but they
are not germane to the SIP revision at issue in this action. As
described in detail in the TSD to this rulemaking, the revisions to
this rule are administrative in nature and do not change the purpose or
substance of the preexisting state rule in the SIP. The TSD, included
in the docket for this rulemaking, detail the revisions the state made
to the prior version of the rule using strikeout, bold and red
lettering. These minor changes include, for example, moving previously
approved language into a new section (revisions to section (3) and
(4)); renumbering paragraphs (revisions to sections (4) and (5)); and
other minor wording changes (revisions to section (1)). EPA's TSD
analysis focused only on these wording changes and did not evaluate the
unchanged portions of the preexisting state rule. The state made no
substantive changes e.g., applicability, emission limit changes, etc.,
to the rule already approved in the state's SIP.
    The EPA did not intend to solicit comments on the portions of the
rule that the state did not change in this rulemaking. The NPRM did not
request comment on the portions of the rule that were unchanged.
Further, EPA's comments during the state's rulemaking process that led
to this SIP revision focused only on the administrative and minor
changes made to the rule, not on the substantive requirements
previously approved into the SIP. See EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0014, State
Submittal, p. 19.\1\ Thus, the agency's comments on the state's draft
SIP submission reflect that the agency was not evaluating the state
rule for any purposes other than the minor revisions the state intended
to make.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although EPA's comments on the rulemaking included a comment
related to MDNR's requirement to comply with the requirements of CAA
sections 110 and 193, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7515; as demonstrated by
the EPA's comment letter, those comments applied generally to all
SIP revisions made by MDNR. Further, because this rule did not have
substantive changes to the requirements previously SIP-approved in
1989, MDNR was not required to make a demonstration under section
110 or 193 because there would be no emissions increases related to
the changes in the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As demonstrated by the language in both the TSD and the notice of
proposed rulemaking, the agency was not evaluating, and did not intend
to evaluate, this SIP revision for substantive purposes. This action
merely approves the state's editorial and renumbering changes to the
existing, approved SIP provision.
    The agency first approved the provision into the Missouri SIP in
1989. 54 FR 10322 (March 13, 1989). The state subsequently amended the
rule, which EPA approved. 59 FR 43480 (Aug. 24, 1994) (correction
document 60 FR 16806 April 3, 1995). Courts have indicated that
actions, such as the action taken on this rule, do not reopen issues on
which the agency was not seeking comment. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886
F.2d 390, 397 (D.C. Cir. 1989)) (``Under the reopening doctrine, the
time for seeking review starts anew where the agency reopens an issue
by holding out the unchanged section as a proposed regulation, offering
an explanation for its language, soliciting comments on its substance,
and responding to the comments in promulgating the regulation in its
final form.''); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir.
2004).\2\ The issues raised by the commenter address the wording and
substance of the state rule approved by the agency in 1989.
Accordingly, any challenge to the 1989 approval would be governed the
timing requirements in Clean Air Act section 301, 42 U.S.C. 7601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ARTBA v. EPA, 588 F.3d 1109 at 1114 (rewriting a rule in
plain language does not reopen); Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 at 1220 (no reopener where
agency ``merely re-worded the provision'' with ``no meaningful
difference''); Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, 920
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (dictum) (no reopener where agency action ``merely
republished an existing rule''); cf. also Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear
Regulatory Com., 901 F.2d 147, 150 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (``where an
agency's actions show that it has not merely republished an existing
rule in order to propose minor changes to it, but has reconsidered
the rule and decided to keep it in effect, challenges to the rule
are in order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA notes that the rule now covers only one source, that
existed when 10 CSR 10-2.320 was first approved, in an area that is
currently attaining all of the NAAQS, including ozone. This rule will
continue to apply to this source and any new sources will be subject to
the appropriate permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act and the
Missouri State Implementation Plan.
    The commenters focus entirely on portions of the rule that were not
changed by this rulemaking, but instead were approved into the SIP by
the agency in 1989 and 1995. As discussed above, the agency did not
reopen these provisions for comment. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this
SIP revision.

Anonymous Commenter

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should not approve this SIP
revision unless Missouri addresses all the comments and makes all the
changes EPA requested in its comments on the rule.
    Response: During Missouri's public comment process, EPA submitted
comments on the state's proposed revisions to a number of existing SIP
provisions. EPA submitted some general comments applicable to the
state's revisions to all of the state rules at issue, not all of which
were applicable to the revisions to 10 CSR 10-2.320 at issue in this
action. EPA submitted three comments to the state that were specific to
the rule revisions addressed in this action. These specific comments by
EPA were related to clarity and references in the rulemaking and
Missouri made those revisions. EPA has determined that the state's
submission has met the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend 10 CSR 10-2.320 Control of
Emissions from Production of Pesticides and Herbicides, which applies
in the Kansas City area.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. 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 Act
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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act CAA, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 24, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

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--AA Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-2.320'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
    Missouri citation                Title            effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-2.320................  Control of Emissions from          1/30/19  8/21/20, [insert
                           Production of Pesticides                    Federal Register
                           and Herbicides.                             citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-16440 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77238]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1673; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-38]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Paoli, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2022, proposing to
establish Class E airspace at Paoli, IN. The FAA has determined that
withdrawal of the NPRM is warranted as the airport has withdrawn its
request to develop public instrument flight procedures necessitating
the establishment of Class E airspace.

DATES: Effective as of 0901 UTC, November 9, 2023, the proposed rule
published December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), is withdrawn.

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:

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA published a NPRM on December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), Docket
No. FAA-2022-1673, to amend 14 CFR 71 by establishing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Paoli Municipal
Airport, Paoli, IN, to support instrument flight rule operations at
this airport. Subsequent to publication, the FAA was notified that the
airport has withdrawn its request to develop public instrument flight
procedures at this airport which necessitated the Class E airspace.

Conclusion

    The FAA determined that the NPRM published on December 22, 2022 (87
FR 78616), is unnecessary. Therefore, the FAA withdraws that NPRM.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 6, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-24843 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86725-86726]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0159]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved
Information Collection: Inspection, Repair and Maintenance

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The information
collection concerns records of inspection, repair, and maintenance of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). FMCSA is seeking to renew an ICR
titled, ``Inspection, Repair and Maintenance.''

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before January
16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jose R. Cestero, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, DOT, FMCSA, West Building, 6th Floor,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Inspection, Repair and Maintenance.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0003.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and CMV drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 757,652 motor carriers and
5,646,722 drivers.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies according to the requirements
for specific records.
    Expiration Date: December 31, 2023.
    Frequency of Response: Varies according to requirements for
specific records.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 19,103,153 hours [14,602,802 hours
for inspection, repair, and maintenance + 3,516,342 hours for driver
inspection reports + 161,528 hours for disposition of roadside
inspection reports + 777,864 hours for periodic inspections + 23,571
hours for records of inspector qualifications + 21,046 hours for
records of brake inspector qualifications].

Background

    The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is authorized under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31502 to prescribe requirements for, among
other things, safety of operations of equipment of motor carriers that
operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Under 49 U.S.C. 31136, the
Secretary also has authority to prescribe regulations to ensure that
CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely. Under 49
U.S.C. 31142 the Secretary must establish standards for annual or more
frequent inspections of CMVs. The Secretary's authority to establish
improved standards or methods to ensure brakes and brake systems of
CMVs are inspected by appropriate employees and maintained properly is
provided under 49 U.S.C. 31137(g).
    Motor carriers must maintain, or require maintenance of, records
documenting the inspection, repair and maintenance activities performed
on their owned and leased vehicles. There are no prescribed forms.
Electronic recordkeeping is allowed (see 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 390.31(d)). Documents requiring a signature must be capable of
replication (e.g., photocopy, facsimile, etc.) in such form that will
provide an opportunity for signature verification upon demand. Also, if
electronic recordkeeping is used, all the relevant data on the original
documents must be included in the electronic transmission for the
records to be valid.
    Most motor carriers would keep some records without any regulatory
requirements to do so. Records of inspection, repair, and maintenance;
roadside inspection reports; driver vehicle inspection reports; the
documentation of periodic inspections; the evidence of the
qualifications of individuals performing periodic inspections; and the
evidence of brake inspectors' qualifications contain the minimum amount
of information necessary to document that a motor carrier has
established a system of inspection, repair, and maintenance for its
equipment which meets the standards in 49 CFR part 396.
    FMCSA and its representatives use these records to verify motor
carriers' compliance with the inspection, repair, and maintenance
standards in part 396. This ICR supports DOT's strategic goal of
safety. The ICR also ensures that motor carriers have adequate records
to document the inspection, repair, and maintenance of their CMVs, and
to ensure that adequate measures are taken to keep their CMVs in safe
and proper operating condition at all times. Compliance with the
inspection, repair, and maintenance regulations helps to reduce the
likelihood of accidents attributable, in whole or in part, to the
mechanical condition of the CMV.
    This ICR submittal includes updated data regarding the number of
motor carriers subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,
vehicle counts, inspections, and other underlying data used to estimate
the total burden hours.
    If the recordkeeping were required to be completed less frequently,
it would greatly hinder the ability of FMCSA and State officials and
representatives to ascertain that CMVs are satisfactorily maintained.
The timely documentation of CMV inspection, repair, and maintenance
enables FMCSA and State officials to evaluate the present state of a
motor carrier's CMV maintenance program and to check the current level
of regulatory compliance at any point in a carrier's maintenance
schedule or program.
    FMCSA has identified periodic inspection standards of 22 States,
the District of Columbia, the Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board, 10
Canadian Provinces, and one Canadian Territory that are comparable to,
or as effective as, the Federal periodic inspection requirements. FMCSA
does not require Federal periodic inspections and the related
recordkeeping for motor carriers that comply with these equivalent
periodic inspection programs. FMCSA is not aware of any other
duplicative standards or recordkeeping requirements that apply to motor
carriers.

    On September 25, 2023, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal
Register with a 60-day public comment period to announce this request
to update the information collection (88 FR 65764). The Agency received
one comment from Whip Around in response to the notice. Whip Around
provided general support for the ICR, however, they suggested the use
of electronic recordkeeping to reduce the need for frequent inspection,
repair, and maintenance.
    While this comment does not impact the information collection,
FMCSA agrees with Whip Around's assessment that the process of
creating, obtaining, and retaining documents can be improved by
digitizing and automating vehicle inspection, repairs, and maintenance
recordkeeping. The Agency has actively pursued this objective, evident
by the amendment on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78292). This amendment
established minimum performance and design standards for electronic
logging devices (ELDs) related to hours-of-service (HOS), mandating
their use for drivers preparing HOS records of duty status. The
amendment aims to enhance CMV safety, reduce paperwork burdens for
motor carriers and drivers, and improve compliance with applicable HOS
rules by promoting the use of ELDs.
    Additionally, on April 16, 2018 (83 FR 16210), FMCSA introduced
amendments permitting the use of electronic records and signatures.
This aligned, in part, with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, as
it only applies to those documents that FMCSA's regulations obligate
entities or individuals to retain. The amendment also updated
references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout
chapter III of subtitle B of 49 CFR (49 CFR parts 300 through 399) to
make them technologically neutral.
    FMCSA's ongoing efforts include projects related to providing data
electronically during roadside inspections. One such project is the
Operational Test of In-Motion CMV Inspections (Level VIII Inspections)
in collaboration with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which was
noted by Whip Around in its comment. The project's goal is to transmit
data through the vehicle's telematics to roadside inspectors while the
vehicle is in motion. In addition to these efforts, the Agency will
continue to pursue opportunities to increase safety and reduce the
burden to motor carriers and CMV drivers.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this ICR.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2023-27459 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


\171\ See proposed CBOE Rule 1.1(iii) for the definition of TPH
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has made technical changes to certain definitions
in Chapter I that do not change the substance of these definitions. For
example, the Exchange has amended the term ``Executive Officer'' to
clarify that the term refers to an executive officer of a TPH
organization.\172\ In addition, the Exchange has amended the definition
of ``Good Standing'' to provide that the term means ``that a Trading
Permit Holder or associated person is not delinquent respecting
Exchange fees or other charges and is not suspended or barred from
being a Trading Permit Holder or from being associated with a Trading
Permit Holder.'' \173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See proposed CBOE Rule 1.1(h).
    \173\ See proposed CBOE Rule 1.1(jj).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Chapter II of the Rules
    CBOE Rule 2.1(a) will be amended to limit its scope to Exchange
committees (i.e., committees that are not solely composed of CBOE Board
directors) and to modify the manner of appointment to such committees.
Prior to the Restructuring Transaction, the Rules generally provided
that except as may be otherwise provided in the Constitution or the
rules, the Vice Chairman of the Board, with the approval of the CBOE
Board, would appoint the chairmen and members of committees (other than
the Business Conduct Committee) to serve for terms expiring at the
first regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the next calendar
year. After the Restructuring Transaction, the Rules will be amended to
provide that the Vice Chairman of the Board, with the approval of the
CBOE Board, will appoint the chairmen and members of Exchange
committees (other than the Business Conduct Committee), with the
exception that if a different manner of appointment is specified for
any specific committee under the CBOE Bylaws, the rules or a resolution
of the CBOE Board establishing that committee, that different manner of
appointment will be followed. After the Restructuring Transaction, the
President, with approval of the Board, will continue to have the
authority to appoint members of the Business Conduct Committee.
    CBOE Rule 2.1(a) also has been amended to streamline the process
for filling vacancies. In this regard, the Vice Chairman of the Board,
with the approval of the CBOE Board, would fill vacancies on Exchange
committees (other than the Business Conduct Committee), unless a
different process is specified for any specific committee under the
CBOE Bylaws, the Rules or a resolution of the CBOE Board establishing
that committee. Similarly, the President, with approval of the CBOE
Board, would fill vacancies on the Business Conduct Committee.
    CBOE Rule 2.1(b) has been amended to provide a definition of quorum
for committee meetings. In this regard, absent a different provision in
the CBOE Bylaws, the Rules, a committee charter or a CBOE Board
resolution related to a specific committee, a majority of members of a
committee shall constitute a quorum. This is consistent with current
Exchange practice for determining a quorum for committee meetings. This
rule also has been amended to delete the reference to ``informally'' in
the last sentence so that it now provides that ``[c]ommittees may act
by written consent of all of the members of the committee.'' This
change was made because committees can take all types of actions
pursuant to written consent, and not just ``informal'' actions.
    Further, CBOE Rules 2.1(d) and 2.2 have been amended to clarify
certain aspects of the authority of the CBOE Board. With regard to CBOE
Rule 2.1(d), the Exchange is proposing to clarify in the first sentence
of that provision that each committee will have such other powers and
duties as may be delegated to it by the CBOE Board in a committee
charter or otherwise. The Exchange also is proposing to move the second
sentence of that provision into a new paragraph (e) of CBOE Rule 2.1
and to modify that sentence so that it provides that each Exchange
committee is subject to the control and supervision of the CBOE Board.
The Exchange is limiting this provision to Exchange committees because
the CBOE Board's relationship to CBOE Board committees is governed by
specific delegations of authority under the CBOE Bylaws, applicable
committee charters and Delaware law.
    With regard to CBOE Rule 2.2, the Exchange is clarifying that the
CBOE Board has the authority to review, modify, suspend or overrule any
and all actions (or inactions) of any committee, officer,
representative or designee of the

Exchange taken (or not taken) pursuant to the rules; provided that the
CBOE Board acts in accordance with any review procedures set forth in
Chapters XVII, XVIII and XIX of the Rules, to the extent applicable to
actions (or inactions) under those Chapters. The Exchange is making
this change to CBOE Rule 2.2 to clarify that consistent with the
general rule under Delaware law, the CBOE Board has the authority to
review actions taken (or actions not taken) by committees, officers,
representatives and designees of the Exchange pursuant to the rules. At
the same time, the Exchange has included language that provides that
the processes related to CBOE Board review (if any) set forth in
Chapters XVII, XVIII and XIX of the rules will be followed. In other
words, to the extent a particular process is not set forth in the rules
(such as the ones in Chapters XVII, XVIII and XIX), the CBOE Board will
have the authority to review actions taken (or actions not taken)
pursuant to the rules by committees, officers, representative and
designees of the Exchange.
    Finally, conforming changes have been made to the rules in Chapter
II to reflect the use of Trading Permits. For instance, CBOE Rule 2.23
has been amended to clarify that the Exchange will have the authority
to suspend or revoke a Trading Permit in the event the holder of that
permit does not pay any amounts due to the Exchange. In addition,
references to the term ``dues'' have been deleted in CBOE Rules 2.20,
2.22 and 2.23 because this term generally refers to payments made by
members in a membership organization.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ This change also has been made to other rules in Chapters
I-III. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 1.1(jj).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Chapter III of the Rules
    Conforming changes throughout Chapter III will be made to reflect
the operation of Trading Permits. For example, the Rules relating to
the sale, transfer and lease of memberships, and to the member death
benefit will be deleted based on the operation of Trading Permits.\175\
In addition, CBOE Rule 3.1 will be deleted and replaced with a new Rule
3.1 (discussed above) that addresses Trading Permits. The prior version
of Rule 3.1 was designed to, among other things, ensure that
memberships were used for trading on the Exchange. This requirement
will no longer be necessary in connection with the use of Trading
Permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ In this regard, CBOE Rules 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.24
and 3.25 will be deleted. One of the rules to be deleted, Rule
3.14(d), describes the rights of membership owners and grantees in
Authorization to Sell arrangements. Persons in these arrangements
should be aware that the Authorization to Sell process will
terminate in connection with the Restructuring Transaction and that
the Exchange will no longer have any involvement in these
arrangements. In addition, persons in these arrangements should
consider the impact, if any, the Restructuring Transaction (i.e.,
the conversion of memberships into Class A common stock in CBOE
Holdings) might have on the collateral in these arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The qualifications to be a member or member organization, and the
application process to become a member, will be the same after the
Restructuring Transaction with modifications to reflect the use of
Trading Permits.\176\ For example, the Exchange is proposing to amend
CBOE Rule 3.3 to condense the description of the requirements that an
organization must meet to become a TPH organization, but is not
substantively changing these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See, e.g., CBOE Rules 3.2 and 3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is making technical changes to certain rules in
Chapter III that do not change the substance of these rules. For
instance, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 3.5 to clarify that
the Exchange will have the authority to deny or condition persons from
becoming or being associated with Trading Permit Holders under the
circumstances that are already set forth in that rule. In addition, the
Exchange is making similar changes to CBOE Rule 3.18 to clarify the
Exchange's authority when a Trading Permit Holder or a person
associated with a Trading Permit Holder becomes subject to a statutory
disqualification. Further, the Exchange is amending CBOE Rule 3.10 to
clarify when Trading Permit Holder status will become effective, and is
amending CBOE Rule 3.11 to clarify that the Exchange will announce such
effectiveness in the Exchange Bulletin.
    In addition, because an individual will be able to hold a Trading
Permit in his or her name, the process for designating nominees for
Trading Permits in CBOE Rule 3.8 will be amended to require a TPH
organization that has an associated person who is an individual holder
of a Trading Permit to designate that individual as the nominee for
that Trading Permit.\177\ Moreover, references to the concept of
registering a membership for a member organization will be deleted in
Rule 3.8 because that concept will have no application once Trading
Permits are used to provide trading access to the Exchange.\178\
Further, the Exchange is streamlining the process of designating
nominees for TPH organizations that have multiple Trading Permits in
their name. Currently, a member organization that has multiple
memberships in its name can designate the same individual to be the
nominee for those memberships, except that for each membership used for
trading in open outcry on the trading floor, the member organization
must designate a different individual to be the nominee for each of
those memberships. As modified, CBOE Rule 3.8(a)(ii) will allow TPH
organizations to designate the same individual to be the nominee for
Trading Permits held in its name, including Trading Permits used for
trading in open outcry on the trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See CBOE Rule 3.8(a).
    \178\ The Exchange also is making this change to other rules in
Chapters I-III and to CBOE Rule 8.3 as part of this rule filing, and
in the remaining rules as part of the companion filing noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is deleting the requirement in CBOE Rule 3.7(g)
that a member keep and maintain a current copy of the Constitution and
rules in a readily accessible place, and that a member organization
that is approved to do business with the public make the Constitution
and rules available for examination by customers. Because the Exchange
is required to maintain a copy of its governing documents and rules
online, the Exchange believes that this requirement is no longer
necessary.
    Finally, the Exchange is amending CBOE Rule 3.9 to, among other
things, delete the requirement that the Exchange post notices of
applications on the Exchange Bulletin Board.\179\ As trading on the
Exchange becomes more electronic and remote from the Exchange, the use
of a physical bulletin board at the Exchange to notify persons is
outdated.\180\ Despite this change, persons will still receive notice
of applications because the Exchange will continue to be required to
post them in the Exchange Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See CBOE Rule 3.9(e).
    \180\ The Exchange also is making this change to other rules in
Chapters I-III as part of this rule filing, and in the remaining
rules as part of the companion filing noted above. CBOE Rule 8.3 is
not affected by this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Basis
    For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes that this
filing is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,\181\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange
Act,\182\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
Exchange members and persons associated with its Exchange members, with
the

provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that this
filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
because the rules summarized herein would create a governance and
regulatory structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\183\ Among other things, the
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of CBOE Holdings and CBOE are
designed to protect and maintain the integrity of the SRO functions of
CBOE, and to allow it to carry out its regulatory responsibilities
under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \182\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \183\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that this filing is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Exchange Act that the
rules of the exchange assure a fair representation of its members in
the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and
provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers
and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange,
broker, or dealer.\184\ As described above, the CBOE Bylaws provide a
process for Trading Permit Holders to select members of the CBOE Board
(i.e., Representative Directors). The CBOE Bylaws also require that a
majority of directors on the CBOE Board be Non-Industry Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents,\185\ the Commission will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has consented to an
extension of time for Commission consideration of the proposed rule
change. See Item 6 of CBOE's Form 19b-4 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-88 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-88. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-2008-88 and should be
submitted on or before September 25, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-20464 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29048-29050]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09742]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0306; FRL-9713-02-R9]

Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the State of California has submitted rules
that satisfy the requirements of part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act'') permitting program for areas under the jurisdiction of the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or ``District'').
This determination is based on a proposed approval, published elsewhere
in this Federal Register, of District rules addressing these
requirements. The effect of this interim final determination is to
defer the imposition of sanctions that were triggered by a previous EPA
action that included a limited disapproval of the District's rules.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on May 12, 2022.
However, comments will be accepted until June 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0306 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which 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. The 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On September 16, 2020, the EPA issued a final action addressing
revisions to the SDAPCD portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) (``2020 NSR Action'').\1\ The 2020 NSR Action addressed the
District's permitting program for the issuance of New Source Review
(NSR) permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting
of major and minor sources under the Act. In the 2020 NSR Action, we
determined that while the District's SIP revision submittal
strengthened the California SIP, the submittal did not fully meet the
requirements for NSR permitting programs under the CAA.

Accordingly, the 2020 NSR Action included a limited disapproval under
title I, part D, of the Act, relating to requirements for nonattainment
areas. Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR
52.31, this limited disapproval action started a sanctions clock for
imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after the action's effective
date of October 16, 2020, and highway sanctions 6 months later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 57727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 14, 2021, the District revised its NSR permitting
program rules and on February 2, 2022, the State submitted three
revised NSR permitting rules to the EPA for approval into the San Diego
County portion of the California SIP (``2022 NSR Submittal''),
including revisions to one rule intended to address the limited
disapproval issue identified in the 2020 NSR Action. In the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we have proposed approval of
the District's 2022 NSR submittal. Based on this proposed approval
action, we are also taking this final rulemaking action, effective upon
publication, to defer imposition of the offset sanctions and highway
sanctions that were triggered by the 2020 NSR Action's limited
disapproval of the District's NSR permitting program, because we
believe that the 2022 NSR Submittal corrects the deficiency that
triggered these sanctions.
    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment, as described in this final determination and in our
proposed full approval of the District's 2022 NSR Submittal, with
respect to the deficiency identified as the basis for our limited
disapproval in the 2020 NSR Action, we will take final action proposing
to lift this deferral of sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31. If no comments
are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and any
sanction clocks triggered by our 2020 NSR Action will be permanently
terminated on the effective date of our final approval of the 2022 NSR
Submittal.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section
179 sanctions associated with our September 16, 2020 limited
disapproval of the District's NSR permitting program. This
determination is based on our concurrent proposal to fully approve the
District's 2022 NSR submittal, which resolves the deficiency that
triggered sanctions under section 179 of the CAA.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that the District's
2022 NSR Submittal addresses the deficiency identified in the 2020 NSR
Action and is fully approvable, relief from sanctions should be
provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the
good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in
not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes
effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action, the EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on the EPA's
determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the District's submittal and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that it corrects the deficiencies that were the basis for the
action that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the
public interest to impose sanctions. The EPA believes that it is
necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer
sanctions while we complete our rulemaking process on the approvability
of the District's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective
date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to
the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this
notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rules do 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).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and
the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the
issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided
by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and
comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or
contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a
good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section II of this
preamble, including the basis for that finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-09742 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52342-52343]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82017; File No. SR-PEARL-2017-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

November 6, 2017.
    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 November 2, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, 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 Exchange proposes to make a number of non-substantive,
technical corrections to its routing fee table set forth in Section
1(b) of the Fee Schedule to reflect recent corporate name changes to
some of the options exchanges listed in the table.
    As a result of recent exchange consolidation and corporate re-
branding, some options exchanges have changed their names. The names of
all options exchanges are set forth in the Exchange's routing fee table
set forth in Section 1(b) of the Fee Schedule, which sets forth the
fees for customer orders that are routed to those options exchanges for
execution. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update its routing fee
table set forth in Section 1(b) of the Fee Schedule to reflect those
recent exchange name changes. No other changes are proposed to the
routing fee table. Accordingly, as amended, the routing fee table shall
be as follows:
    (b) Fees and Rebates for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options
Exchange MIAX PEARL will assess a Routing Fee to market participants on
all orders routed to and executed on an away market as set forth in the
table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Description                             Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Pilot, to: NYSE                   $0.15
 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options , Nasdaq MRX,
 MIAX OPTIONS, Nasdaq PHLX (except SPY), Nasdaq BX
 Options................................................
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Pilot, to: NYSE Arca               0.65
 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq
 ISE, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only).......................
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Pilot, to: NYSE                0.15
 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq ISE,
 Nasdaq MRX, MIAX OPTIONS, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX
 Options................................................
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Pilot, to: NYSE                0.97
 Arca Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX,
 NOM....................................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer,            0.65
 Penny Pilot, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe
 BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options,
 Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX OPTIONS, NOM,
 Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options.........................

Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer,            0.65
 Non-Penny Pilot, to: NYSE American.....................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer,            1.20
 Non-Penny Pilot, to: NYSE Arca Options, Cboe BZX
 Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX, Nasdaq BX
 Options................................................
Routed (Public Customer that is not a Priority                      0.97
 Customer), Non-Penny Pilot, to: BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX
 Options, Nasdaq ISE, MIAX OPTIONS, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members and other persons using its facilities, and 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\5\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to update its routing
fee table set forth in Section 1(b) of the Fee Schedule to reflect
recent exchange name changes promote just and equitable principles of
trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because the proposed rule
change makes non-substantive technical corrections and updates the
Exchange's Fee Schedule. None of the name changes alter the application
of any fees or rebates on the Fee Schedule. As such, the proposed
amendments would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the
public regarding the Exchange's Rules. It is in the public interest for
rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for
confusion.

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

    MIAX PEARL does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes to update
its routing fee table set forth in Section 1(b) of the Fee Schedule to
reflect recent exchange name changes will have no impact on competition
as they are not designed to address any competitive issues but rather
are designed to make non-substantive technical corrections and update
the Exchange's Fee Schedule.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act,\6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2017-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2017-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2017-36 and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24437 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8248-8249]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0166; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-329-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 747 airplanes listed above. This proposed AD would require
repetitive inspections for broken or missing fasteners in the single-
row hinge fasteners of the forward and aft cargo doors, and related
investigative/corrective actions. This proposed AD results from reports
of broken and missing fasteners in the hinges of the forward and aft
cargo doors in both the body hinge segments and the door hinge
segments. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct broken or
missing fasteners in the hinge segments with a single fastener row,
which could lead to opening of the cargo door during flight and result
in rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0166;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-329-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of broken fasteners in the hinge segments
of the forward and aft cargo doors. Two operators have reported broken
fasteners in both the body hinge segments and the door hinge segments.
One operator of a Model 747-400 series airplane found three fractured
fasteners at the aft cargo door, and a subsequent torque check showed
that two other fasteners were also fractured. Another operator reported
that all eight fasteners of a hinge segment at the forward cargo door
of a Model 747-300 series airplane were fractured. This operator also
reported finding four fractured fasteners in one hinge segment at the
forward cargo door of a different airplane. Broken or missing fasteners
in the hinge segments, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
opening of the cargo door during flight and result in rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2287, dated
October 25, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for a
repetitive detailed inspection for broken or missing fasteners of the
single-row hinge fasteners of the forward and aft cargo door hinge
segments, and related investigative and corrective actions. If no
broken fastener is found, the service bulletin specifies the related
investigative action of applying torque to all the fasteners at that
segment to detect any broken fastener. If any inspection or torque
application shows a broken fastener, the service bulletin specifies the
corrective action of replacing all fasteners in the hinge segment where
the broken fastener is found.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.''

Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    The Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin do not
state the action to take if there is a missing fastener. This proposed
AD would require replacing all fasteners in any hinge segment that has
one or more missing fasteners.

Interim Action

    A Boeing investigation has not determined a specific root cause for
the unsafe condition; therefore, we consider this proposed AD interim
action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further
rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 165 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The ``Estimated Costs'' table provides the estimated
costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Average                        Number of U.S.-
            Action               Work hours   labor rate   Cost per product      registered        Fleet cost
                                               per hour                          airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspection...........            3          $80  $240, per          165..............  $39,600, per
                                                           inspection cycle.                     inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Torque application (for any               7           80  $560, per          Up to 165........  Up to $92,400,
 hinge segment with no broken                              inspection cycle.                     per inspection
 or missing fastener).                                                                           cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0166; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
329-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 31, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of broken and missing fasteners
in the hinges of the forward and aft cargo doors in both the body
hinge segments and the door hinge segments. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct broken or missing fasteners in the hinge
segments, which could lead to the cargo door opening during flight
and result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Repetitive Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

    (f) Before the accumulation of 7,200 total flight cycles or
within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for broken or
missing fasteners of the single-row hinge fasteners of the forward
and aft cargo door hinge segments, and do all applicable related
investigative (torque application) and corrective actions by
accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2287, dated
October 25, 2007. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles. Where the
service bulletin does not give an action to take if there is one or
more fasteners missing from a hinge segment, replace all fasteners
in the hinge segment before further flight in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
52A2287, dated October 25, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 4, 2008.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-2588 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56653-56654]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2347-064]

Midwest Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: 2347-064.
    c. Date filed: August 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Midwest Hydro, LLC (Midwest Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Janesville Hydroelectric Project (Janesville
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Rock River near the
towns of Janesville and Fulton in Rock County, Wisconsin. The project
does not include any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. David Fox, Senior Director of Regulatory
Affairs, Eagle Creek RE Management, LLC, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
1100W, Bethesda, Maryland 20814,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and

serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: October 29, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2347-064.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Janesville Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 141-acre reservoir; (2) a 255.3-foot-long concrete
dam; (3) transmission equipment that consists of unit 1's generator
connected through one, three phase, 400-Ampere, 7.5-kilovolt (kV) dry
type vacuum contactor and unit 2's generator connected through one,
oil-filled, three phase, 400-Ampere, 7.5-kV circuit breaker to the 4.1-
kV bus and a 4.1-kV/12.4-kV, 500 kilovolt amperes three phase
transformer connected to a non-project 12.4-kV distribution system; (4)
a tailrace: and (5) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a
total installed capacity of 0.5 megawatts.
    The Janesville Project is currently operated in a run-of-river mode
and generates an annual average of approximately 2.285 megawatt hours.
Midwest Hydro proposes to continue operating the project as a run-of-
river facility and does not propose any new construction to the
project.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at 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 on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)....  December 2022
Request Additional Information............  December 2022
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.....  June 2023
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)...  October 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental     October 2023
 Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 9, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19982 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P