May 7, 2009 e-mail about ADM plant energy sources

From: "Frommelt, Dean"   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> To: Julie Boledovich/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Julie,

Sorry for the delay in response to your questions.

Estimated dates of ethanol production at the following facilities are noted in brackets below.  Also, you reference these as "coal-fired ethanol plants" but I'd like to clarify that each of these plants do vary in fuels used for the ethanol production. Some of the plants burn a high percentage of coal but also may have some biomass, tire derived fuels, and other materials co-fired while a couple of the others actually have a higher gas percentage than coal for the fuels.

Cedar Rapids, IA  (wet mill) [≈1981]

Clinton, IA [ADM acquired ≈1981]

Decatur, IL [≈1976]

Peoria, IL [ADM acquired ≈1980]

Walhalla, ND, [ADM acquired ≈1990]

Columbus, NE (wet mill) - 1994 [ADM ≈2002]

Marshall, MN - 1988 [ADM ≈2002]

ž

ê

2

r

t

d construction July 2007 and October 2006, respectively.  The Columbus dry mill and Cedar Rapids dry mills are still under construction.  Their progress and anticipated start-up under review.

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Dean

Dean Frommelt

Divisional Environmental Manager

Corn Processing & BioProducts

1001 Brush College Road

Decatur, IL  62521

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Mobile:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20488-20489]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-118-000.
    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC, Rising Tree Wind Farm II
LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Rising
Tree Wind Farm LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-119-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission
Facilities of American Transmission Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2570-017.
    Applicants: Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Amendment to December 16, 2014 Triennial Market Power
Analysis of Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/3/15.
    Accession Number: 20150403-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2956-006.
    Applicants: Hoopeston Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Hoopeston
Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-527-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Errata to Compliance Filing
in Docket No. ER15-527-000 to be effective 2/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15

    .Docket Numbers: ER15-1487-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and
Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Dominion submits revisions to OATT Att H-16A re: prepayments to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/9/15.
    Accession Number: 20150409-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1488-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PPL
submits revisions to OATT Attachment H-8G re PBOP expense to be
effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/9/15.
    Accession Number: 20150409-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1489-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): BPA
Construction Agreement (Summer Lake CB & SCADA) to be effective 6/9/
2015.
    Filed Date: 4/9/15.
    Accession Number: 20150409-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1490-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
04-10_Attachment O Reconciliation Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1491-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Concurrence of EPE to APS Service Agreement No. 193, Amendment 3 to be
effective 2/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1492-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Concurrence of EPE to APS Service Agreement Nos. 190,

192, 194, and 195 to be effective 3/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1493-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): FAP
to be effective 6/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1494-000.
    Applicants: Convergent Energy and Power LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Petition for Acceptance
of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority to be effective 6/15/
2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1495-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Clay
Solar LGIA Filing to be effective 3/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150410-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/15.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08748 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15495-15498]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0170; Product Identifier 2017-SW-091-AD; Amendment
39-19239; AD 2018-07-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E, A109K2, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119
MKII helicopters. This AD reduces the life limit of and requires
inspecting a tail rotor blade retention bolt (bolt). This AD is
prompted by the discovery of a cracked bolt. The actions of this AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 26, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 26, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0170; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0170.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this

rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments
we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those
comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2016-0173-E, dated August
24, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly
Agusta) Model A109E, A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and
AW119MKII helicopters. EASA advises of a crack found in a bolt, part
number (P/N) 709-0160-57-101, during a pre-flight inspection of a Model
A109E helicopter. This part-numbered bolt is also installed on Model
A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119MKII helicopters.
Subsequent investigation did not identify the cause of the crack. EASA
advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead
to failure of the tail rotor, possibly resulting in loss of control of
the helicopter. As a precautionary measure pending the completion of
the investigation and to address the unsafe condition, the EASA AD
requires reducing the life limit of and repetitively inspecting the
bolts. The EASA AD is considered an interim action and further AD
action may follow.
    Accordingly, this AD requires reducing the life limit of bolt P/N
709-0160-57-101 to 800 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3,200 landings,
depending on the model helicopter on which the bolt is installed. This
AD also requires, within 25 hours TIS, inspecting each bolt for a crack
using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, both before and after
cleaning and degreasing the bolts. Additional inspections of the bolts
at longer intervals may also be necessary. We plan to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on
those long-term requirements.
    The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to
Leonardo Helicopters on its FAA type certificate. Because this name
change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Leonardo Helicopters has issued Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico (BT)
No. 109EP-149 for Model A109E helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109K-72 for
Model A109K2 helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109S-072 for Model A109S
helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109SP-105 for Model AW109SP helicopters,
and Mandatory BT No. 119-080 for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters,
all dated August 19, 2016. This service information specifies reducing
the life limit of bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 and repetitively inspecting
the bolts for cracks.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, removing from service any
bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has reached or exceeded its new life
limit. Thereafter, this AD requires removing from service any bolt P/N
709-0160-57-101 before it reaches its new life limit.
    This AD also requires, within 25 hours time-in-service, inspecting
each bolt for a crack using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass,
both before and after cleaning and degreasing the bolts, and replacing
a cracked bolt before further flight.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters. This AD does not
because the Model A109LUH does not have an FAA type certificate. The
EASA AD does not specify life limits for bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that
has been interchanged between model helicopter installations, while
this AD does. The EASA AD requires repeating the visual inspection
every 200 hours, while this AD does not, as this time interval would
allow for sufficient time for notice and comment.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is currently developing a modification that will address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 234 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Removing a bolt that has reached its new life limit will take about
2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per bolt. Inspecting the bolts will
take about 4 work-hours for an estimated cost of $340 per helicopter
and $79,560 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a bolt will take negligible
additional labor time and parts will cost about $500.
    According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information, some of the
costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by Leonardo Helicopter. Accordingly, we have included all
costs in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because some of the required corrective actions must be completed
before further flight. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable.
    In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-07-08 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19239; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0170; Product Identifier 2017-SW-091-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A109E, A109K2, A109S, AW109SP, A119,
and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category, with a
tail rotor blade retention bolt (bolt) part number (P/N) 709-0160-
57-101 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a bolt. This
condition could result in failure of the tail rotor and loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 26, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight:
    (i) For Model A109E and A109K2 helicopters, remove from service
any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has 800 or more hours time-in-
service (TIS). If the hours TIS is unknown, remove the bolt from
service. Thereafter, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-
101 before accumulating 800 hours TIS.
    (ii) For Model A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters,
remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has 3,200 or
more landings. If the number of landings is unknown, remove the bolt
from service. Thereafter, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-
57-101 before accumulating 3,200 landings. For purposes of this AD,
a landing is counted anytime a helicopter lifts off into the air and
then lands again regardless of the duration of the landing and
regardless of whether the engine is shutdown.
    (iii) Remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has
been interchanged between different model helicopters listed in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD that has 800 or more
hours TIS or 3,200 or more landings. If the hours TIS or number of
landings is unknown, remove the bolt from service. Thereafter,
remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has been
interchanged between different model helicopters listed in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD before accumulating
800 hours TIS or 3,200 landings, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 25 hours TIS, remove each bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101.
Prior to cleaning, using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass,
visually inspect the bolt for a crack in the area depicted in Figure
1 of Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico Nos. 109EP-
149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-105, or 119-080, all dated August 19,
2016 (BT Nos. 109EP-149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-105, or 119-080),
as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (i) If there is a crack, replace the bolt before further flight.
    (ii) If there are no cracks, clean and degrease the inspection
area of the bolt with solvent, and using a 10X or higher power
magnifying glass, visually inspect the bolt for a crack in the area
depicted in Figure 1 of BT Nos. 109EP-149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-
105, or 119-080, as applicable to your model helicopter. If there is
a crack, replace the bolt before further flight.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2016-0173-E, dated August 24, 2016.
You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2018-0170.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor
Drive System.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109EP-
149, dated August 19, 2016.
    (ii) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109K-
72, dated August 19, 2016.
    (iii) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No.
109S-072, dated August 19, 2016.
    (iv) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No.
109SP-105, dated August 19, 2016.
    (v) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 119-
080, dated August 19, 2016.
    (3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head
of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 3, 2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07285 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43061-43063]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81550; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Expand the
Application of the Family-Issued Securities Charge

September 7, 2017.
    On July 10, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-010 (``Proposed Rule
Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule
Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 31,
2017.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on the Proposed
Rule Change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission approves
the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81203 (July 25, 2017),
82 FR 35563 (July 31, 2017) (SR-NSCC-2017-010) (``Notice''). NSCC
also filed a related advance notice with the Commission pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b-4(n)(1) under the Act. 15
U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1). The advance notice was
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2017. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 81286 (August 2, 2017), 82 FR 37141 (August
8, 2017) (SR-NSCC-2017-804). The Commission did not receive any
comments on that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Proposed Rule Change is a proposal by NSCC to further address
specific wrong-way risk \4\ that is present when NSCC acts as central
counterparty to a transaction with an NSCC member (``Member'') where
the underlying securities are securities issued by such Member or an
affiliate of such Member (``family-issued securities'').\5\ Currently,
NSCC applies a targeted margin charge to address the specific wrong-way
risk of family-issued securities transactions (``FIS Charge'') where
the Member is on NSCC's Watch List.\6\ NSCC believes that Members on
the Watch List present a higher credit risk (i.e., a greater risk of
defaulting on their settlement obligations), compared to Members not on
the Watch List.\7\ As such, the family-issued securities of Members on
the Watch List currently receive a FIS Charge because of the increased
credit risk presented by such Members.\8\ As described in detail below,
NSCC proposes in the Proposed Rule Change to expand the application of
the FIS Charge to all Members, regardless of a Member's Watch List
status, but still maintain a higher FIS Charge for Members that present
a greater credit risk to NSCC, such as Members on the Watch List.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specific wrong-way risk is the risk that an exposure to a
counterparty is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness
of that counterparty is deteriorating. See Principles for financial
market infrastructures, issued by the Committee on Payment and
Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of the International
Organization of Securities Commissions 47 n.65 (April 2012),
available at http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss101a.pdf.
    \5\ Notice, 82 at 35563-64. As part of this proposal, NSCC
proposes to define in its rules that, for a given Member, a family-
issued security is a security that was issued by such Member or an
affiliate of such Member. Notice, 82 at 35563.
    \6\ Notice, 82 at 35563. As part of its ongoing monitoring of
its membership, NSCC utilizes an internal credit risk rating matrix
to rate its risk exposures to its Members based on a scale from 1
(the strongest) to 7 (the weakest). Members that fall within the
weakest three rating categories (i.e., 5, 6, and 7) are placed on
NSCC's ``Watch List'' and, as provided under NSCC's Rules and
Procedures (``Rules''), may be subject to enhanced surveillance or
additional margin charges. See Section 4 of Rule 2B and Section
I(B)(1) of Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules, available at http://
dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \7\ Notice, 82 at 35564.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, in calculating a Watch List Member's overall margin
charge (i.e., a Watch List Member's required deposit to NSCC's clearing
fund), NSCC excludes the Member's net, unsettled long position in
family-issued securities from the volatility component of the margin
calculation (``VaR Charge'').\10\ Instead, for such unsettled long
positions, NSCC calculates the required margin (i.e., the FIS Charge)
by multiplying the position value by a set percentage, which is
determined based on a Member's rating on NSCC's internal credit risk
rating matrix.\11\ NSCC applies this separate margin calculation to
deal with specific wrong-way risk that arises from these positions
because NSCC has to liquidate the unsettled family-issued security long
positions in the Member's portfolio to manage the default.\12\ Given
that the Member's default would likely adversely affect NSCC's ability
to liquidate such positions at full value (because the value of the
family-issued securities will decline in response to the Member's
default), NSCC applies the FIS Charge to try to address the risk of a
shortfall.\13\ According to NSCC, the FIS Charge constitutes a more
conservative approach to collecting margin on family-issued security
positions than what may be achieved by applying the VaR Charge, which
does not recognize the relationship between the Member and the family-
issued securities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. More specifically, fixed-income securities that are
family-issued securities are charged a rate of no less than 80
percent for firms that are rated 6 or 7 on the credit risk rating
matrix, and no less than 40 percent for firms that are rated 5 on
the credit risk rating matrix. Equity securities that are family-
issued securities are charged a rate of 100 percent for firms that
are rated 6 or 7 on the credit risk rating matrix, and no less than
50 percent for firms that are rated 5 on the credit risk rating
matrix. See Section I(B)(1) of Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules,
available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
    \12\ Notice, 82 at 35564. In a default scenario, NSCC would
receive the family-issued securities from a Member's guaranteed long
transactions and would have to liquidate the holding to unwind
NSCC's position. Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the risk of default by Members that are not on the Watch
List is lower than Members on the Watch

List, NSCC believes that it is appropriate to apply the FIS Charge to
all Members because all Members' long positions in family-issued
securities present specific wrong-way risk. However, the proposal would
still maintain the relation between the FIS Charge and the Member's
risk of default (i.e., the Member's credit risk), while at the same
time addressing the difference in risk posed by equity and fixed-income
securities. As such, NSCC proposes in the Proposed Rule Change to apply
the FIS Charge to fixed-income securities that are family-issued
securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 40
percent, and to equities that are family-issued securities of non-Watch
List Members at a rate of no less than 50 percent.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. According to NSCC, it calibrated the FIS Charge rates
based on historical corporate-issue recovery-rate data. The rate
applicable to equities is higher than the rate applicable to fixed-
income securities because NSCC determined that equities present a
greater risk than fixed-income securities of having a value at or
near zero when a Member defaults. The Commission understands that
NSCC calculated the 40 and 50 percent rates based on a weighted
value of the probability of a Member defaulting and the potential
loss that NSCC may realize when liquidating family-issued securities
after a Member default. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75768
(August 27, 2015), 80 FR 53219, 53220 (September 2, 2015) (SR-NSCC-
2015-003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\16\ After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change,
the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to NSCC. In particular, the Commission believes the proposal
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\17\ as well as
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v)
thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi); (e)(6)(i); and (e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\19\ The
Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act for the reasons set
forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. As described above, the proposal would provide for the
collection by NSCC of margin amounts that contemplate and help address
the specific wrong-way risk presented by all Members. In doing so, the
proposal would help ensure that NSCC maintains sufficient margin in the
event that a Member holding family-issued securities defaults and such
positions significantly decrease in value. Without this increased
margin, NSCC is at a greater risk of not having enough margin to offset
potential losses from the reduced value of family-issued securities in
a default scenario. Such losses could threaten NSCC's ability to
continue operations of its critical clearance and settlement services.
Because the proposal would generally increase the level of financial
resources available to NSCC, better enabling NSCC to continue operating
in default scenarios, the proposal would help NSCC to continue
providing prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions in the event of a Member default.
    The Commission believes also that the proposal is designed to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible. As described
above, the FIS Charge is calculated and collected to help mitigate
NSCC's loss exposure to specific wrong-way risk that NSCC may face when
liquidating family-issued security positions that are depreciating in
value in response to a Member's default. By expanding the FIS Charge to
family-issued security transactions presented to NSCC by all Members,
the proposal would assist NSCC in collecting margin and maintaining a
clearing fund amount that more accurately reflects NSCC's overall risk
exposure to its Members. Therefore, the proposal is designed to help
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of NSCC by mitigating the risk that NSCC would
suffer a loss from a Member default, and reducing Members' exposure to
clearing fund losses from the specific wrong-way risk that NSCC faces
from Member transactions in family-issued securities. Therefore, for
the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the Proposed
Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)

    The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act, which requires, in part, that
NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including
by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit
exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC is exposed to specific wrong-way risk
where it acts as central counterparty for its Members for transactions
in family-issued securities. The expanded application of the FIS Charge
to all Members would help further mitigate NSCC's loss exposure to this
risk. The charge is calculated and imposed based on the value and type
of family-issued securities in each Member's portfolio and in
consideration of the Members' credit rating, as calculated by NSCC's
internal credit risk matrix. Although the FIS Charge may not fully
reflect the recovery rate on a family-issue security when a Member
defaults, the Commission understands that expanding the FIS Charge to
non-Watch List Members, as proposed, would enable NSCC to collect more
margin on such positions than would a VaR Charge, more accurately
reflecting the risks those positions present. Thus, the expanded FIS
Charge is designed to help NSCC collect sufficient financial resources
to help cover the specific risk exposure, with a high degree of
confidence, which is presented by all Members seeking to clear and
settle transactions in family-issued securities. Therefore, the
Commission believes that the proposal to expand the FIS Charge to all
Members is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v)

    The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v) under the Act, which require,
in part, that NSCC establish, implement,

maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum considers,
and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular
attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market; and uses an
appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for
relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC faces specific wrong-way risk where it
acts as central counterparty to Member transactions in family-issued
securities. To help address this risk, NSCC applies the FIS Charge in
calculating the Member's required margin. Specifically, the FIS Charge
is a component of the margin that NSCC calculates and collects using a
risk-based margin methodology that is designed to help maintain the
coverage of NSCC's credit exposures to its Members at a confidence
level of at least 99 percent. The FIS Charge is tailored to consider
both the value and type of family-issued securities held by the Member,
as well as the credit risk presented by the Member, as calculated by
NSCC.
    However, currently, the FIS Charge is assessed only against Members
on the Watch List because of the additional credit risk presented by
such Members. Nevertheless, all Members, not just Members on the Watch
List, present specific wrong-way risk. As such, NSCC proposes to expand
the FIS Charge to all Members, while maintaining the relation between
the FIS Charge and the Member's credit risk. Specifically, NSCC
proposes to apply the FIS Charge to fixed-income securities that are
family-issued securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less
than 40 percent, and to equities that are family-issued securities of
non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 50 percent. Although
NSCC proposes to apply a lesser percentage rate to non-Watch List
Members than some Watch List Members, the proposed rate is designed to
more accurately reflect the risks posed than what is reflected in a VaR
Charge.
    Because the expanded FIS Charge also would be a tailored component
of the margin that NSCC collects from non-Watch List Members to help
cover NSCC credit exposure to such Members, as the charge would be
based on different product risk factors with respect to equity and
fixed-income securities, as described above, the Commission believes
that the proposed changes in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v) under the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in
particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \25\ and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-010 be and hereby is APPROVED as
of the date of this order or the date of a notice by the Commission
authorizing NSCC to implement its related advance notice proposal (SR-
NSCC-2017-804), whichever is later.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19379 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 11449]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0077 (Formerly 2007D-0213)]

Guidance for Industry on Providing Regulatory Submissions in
Electronic Format--Receipt Date; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of Friday, February 7, 2014 (79
FR 7463). The document announced the availability of a guidance
entitled ``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--
Receipt Date.'' The document was published with an incorrect Web site
in the ``Electronic Access'' section. This document corrects that
error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marina Kalinina, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 1183, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
7591; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 5515 Security Lane, rm. 5130, Rockville,
MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    In FR Doc. 2014-02654, appearing on page 7463 in the Federal
Register of Friday, February 7, 2014, the following correction is made:
    1. On page 7464, in the first column, in the ``Electronic Access''
section, the Web site ``http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/ucm253101.htm'' is corrected to read ``http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.''

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-04424 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1547-1548]
[DOCID:fr12ja10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 219

[Docket No. 2001-11213, Notice No. 13]
RIN 2130-AA81

Alcohol and Drug Testing: Determination of Minimum Random Testing
Rates for 2010

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Determination.

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

SUMMARY: Using data from Management Information System annual reports,
FRA has determined that the 2008 rail industry random testing positive
rates were 0.46 percent for drugs and 0.15 percent for alcohol. Because
the industry-wide random drug testing positive rate has remained below
1.0 percent for the last two years of data, the Federal Railroad
Administrator (Administrator) has determined that the minimum annual
random drug testing rate for the period January 1, 2010, through
December 31, 2010, will remain at 25 percent of covered railroad
employees. In addition, because the industry-wide random alcohol
testing violation rate has remained below 0.5 percent for the last two
years, the Administrator has determined that the minimum random alcohol
testing rate will remain at 10 percent of covered railroad employees
for the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

DATES: This notice is effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lamar Allen, Alcohol and Drug Program
Manager, Office of Safety Enforcement, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Kathy Schnakenberg, FRA Alcohol/Drug
Program Specialist, (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Administrator's Determination of 2010 Minimum Random Drug and Alcohol
Testing Rates

    In a final rule published on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62218), FRA
announced that it will set future minimum random drug and alcohol
testing rates according to the rail industry's overall positive rate,
which is determined using annual railroad drug and alcohol program data
taken from FRA's Management Information System. Based on this data, the
Administrator publishes a Federal Register notice each year, announcing
the minimum random drug and alcohol testing rates for the following
year. See 49 CFR 219.602 and 219.608.
    Under this performance-based system, FRA may lower the minimum
random drug testing rate to 25 percent of covered railroad employees
whenever the industry-wide random drug positive rate is less than 1.0
percent for two calendar years while testing at a 50 percent minimum
rate. For both drugs and alcohol, FRA reserves the right to consider
other factors, such as the number of positives in its post-accident
testing program, before deciding whether to lower annual minimum random
testing rates. If the industry-wide random drug positive rate is 1.0
percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year, FRA will return the
minimum random drug testing rate to 50 percent of covered railroad
employees.
    If the industry-wide random alcohol violation rate is less than 1.0
percent but greater than 0.5 percent, the minimum random alcohol
testing rate will be 25 percent of covered railroad employees. FRA will
raise the minimum random rate to 50 percent of covered railroad
employees if the industry-wide random alcohol violation rate is 1.0
percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year. FRA may lower the
minimum random alcohol testing rate to 10 percent of covered railroad
employees whenever the industry-wide violation rate is less than 0.5
percent for two calendar years while testing at a higher rate.
    In this notice, FRA announces that the minimum random drug testing
rate will remain at 25 percent of covered railroad employees for the
period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, because the industry
random drug testing positive rate was below 1.0 percent for the last
two years (the drug testing positive rate was .046 percent in 2008 and
.056 percent in 2007). The minimum random alcohol testing rate will
remain at 10 percent of covered railroad employees for the period
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, because the industry-wide
violation rate for alcohol has remained

below 0.5 percent for the last two years (the industry-wide violation
rate for alcohol was .015 percent in 2008 and .018 percent in 2007).
Railroads remain free, as always, to conduct random testing at higher
rates.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-374 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42171-42172]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15000-003]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests
and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a 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: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 15000-003.
    c. Date filed: June 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie).
    e. Name of Project: Franklin Falls Hydroelectric Project (Franklin
Falls Project).
    f. Location: On the Saranac River, in the town of St. Armand in
Essex County and the town of Franklin in Franklin County, New York. The
project does not include any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven Murphy, Director, U.S. Licensing, Erie
Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, New York
13069; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; and Patrick Storms, Director of
Operations, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 800 Starbuck Avenue, Suite
201, Watertown, New York 13601; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Claire Rozdilski,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[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: August 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. All filings must clearly identify the
project name and docket number on the first page: Franklin Falls
Hydroelectric Project (P-15000-003).
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Franklin Falls Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 148-foot-long, 45-foot-high concrete overflow-type
dam at a crest elevation of 1,463.2 feet mean sea level (msl) with 2-
foot-high flashboards; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 485 acres
and a gross storage capacity of 5,580 acre-feet at pool elevation
1,465.2 feet msl; (3) an integrated 28-foot-long gated intake structure
located on the dam's right (south) side; (4) a 10.5-foot-diameter, 300-
foot-long steel pipeline; (5) a surge tank; (6) two 10-foot-diameter,
38-foot-long penstocks; (7) a powerhouse containing two generating
units having a total rated capacity of 2.265 megawatts; (8) 85-foot-
long, 2.3-kilovolt (kV) generator leads; (9) a 2.3/46-kV step-up
transformer bank; (10) a 300-foot-long, 46-kV transmission line; (11) a
tailrace; and (12) appurtenant facilities. Erie does not propose
changes to project facilities or operations. Erie is proposing to make
a minor adjustment to the project boundary by removing approximately
1.12 acres along the northern shoreline, which are not needed for
project operations, and adding approximately 0.14 acre to include the
project's existing hand-carry boat launch.
    The Franklin Falls Project operates in a modified run-of-river
mode. If inflow exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the units, the
project operates continuously at full load. When the inflow is less
than the hydraulic capacity of the project, the project is operated in
a run-of-river mode utilizing pondage as needed for daily flow
regulation and to suit power requirements of the New York Independent
System Operator. Average annual generation at the project was 10,349
megawatt-hours between 2016 and 2020.
    o. A copy of the application may 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. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    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 and final amendments: 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)  August 2022.
Request Additional Information (if      August 2022.
 necessary).
Issue Acceptance Letter and Notice....  November 2022.

Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.  December 2022.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if            February 2023.
 necessary).
Issue Notice of Ready for               March 2023.
 Environmental 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: July 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15056 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Summer Test Program Carbon Analysis MeadWestvaco Corporation Carbon Department Covington, VA 24426 2 Test Cases 9/ 7 ( 2) 3.5 liter 300 gallon 29' Sportfisherman Century 8/ 4 & 9/ 15 4.0 liter ( 2) 150 gallon 30' Offshore Grady White 9/ 16 4.0 liter 150 gallon 23' Offshore Grady White 4.0 liter 150 gallon 26' Offshore Century 8/ 16 4.0 liter 150 gallon 26' Sportfisherman Century 2.5 liter 85 gallon 27' Cruiser Four Winns 1.5 liter 50 gallon 21' Open Bow Four Winns 8/ 25 1.5 liter 50 gallon 19' Open Bow Four Winns 1.0 liter 25 gallon 23' Pontoon Crestliner 9/ 20 1.0 liter 25 gallon 23' Pontoon Crestliner 1.0 liter 31 gallon 18' Open Boat Crestliner 9/ 20 1.0 liter 24 gallon 17' Open Boat Crestliner 1.0 liter 32 gallon 18' Open Bow Four Winns 8/ 25 1.0 liter 24 gallon 17' Open Bow Four Winns Test Date( s)

Canister Volume Fuel Tank Volume Type Boat Manufacturer 3 BWC Procedure Load Canister with 100% Butane at 600 cc/ min to 50% Breakthrough Vacuum Purge Canister at 10 lpm for 300 bed volumes Load Canister with 100% Butane at 600 cc/ min to 50% Breakthrough Conditions Canister to Reproducible State Purges butane And gasoline From Canister Establishes Capacity of Canister under Standard conditions 4 BWC Apparatus Butane Cylinder Vacuum Pump Purge Flow meter Butane Feed Flow meter Butane Vent Flow meter Vent Bubble Meter Temp Meter 5 BWC Test Results Net BWC Correlation with Canister Volume 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Canister Volume ( liters)

Normalized BWC (

grams/

liter) 6 Repeat Testing at Grady White Grady White Bimini 4.0 Liter On Site Butane Test Results 8/ 4/ 2005 and 9/ 15/ 05 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Time ( min)

Discharge Flow Rate (

mL/

min) Initial Load Final Load Canister Volume 4.0 L Carbon Type SeaGuard   3 mm Net BWC 115 grams Normalized BWC 28.7 grams Butane Feed ( 100%) 600 mL/ min Purge 300 bv at 10 lpm 1 1 2 2 No degradation in capacity was identified 7 Summary

Testing showed no degradation in capacity due to moisture or liquid gasoline exposure

Regenerable carbon capacity was maintained throughout test period

Carbon capacity was unaffected by physical stresses associated with marine use

Carbon canisters did not affect performance of boats 8 Future Work

Carbon canisters will be removed from boats and tested for particle size distribution, heel analysis,

and capacity

Two canisters will remain on boats for long term testing