[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62923-62926]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70677; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding a New Rule
To Adopt Price Protection Filters for Electronic Complex Orders

October 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 3, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to add a new rule to adopt price protection
filters for Electronic Complex Orders. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 is proposing to amend Rule 6.91-Electronic Complex
Order Trading by establishing new Commentary .04 [sic] governing price
protections filters applicable to electronically entered Complex
Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Rule 6.62(e) defines a Complex Order as any order
involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more
different option series in the same underlying security, for the
same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-
three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for
the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As defined in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91, which governs Electronic Complex
Order trading, an ``Electronic Complex Order'' is a Complex Order
entered into the NYSE Arca System (``System''), which is routed to the
Complex Matching Engine (``CME'') for possible execution. As set forth
in Rule 6.91, the CME is the mechanism in which Electronic Complex
Orders are executed against each other or against individual quotes and
orders in the Consolidated Book. Electronic Complex Orders that are not
immediately executed by the CME are routed to the Consolidated Book.
    Electronic Complex Orders are entered into the System at a net
debit/credit price for the entire strategy. Complex Orders do not
include specified prices for any single series component (``leg'') of
the Electronic Complex Order. Bids and offers on Electronic Complex
Orders may be expressed in any decimal price, and the legs(s) of an
Electronic Complex Order may be executed in one cent increments
regardless of the minimum price variation (``MPV'') \5\ otherwise
applicable to the individual legs of the order. No leg of an Electronic
Complex Order submitted to the System will be executed at a price
outside the NYSE Arca best bid/offer for that leg. However, Electronic
Complex Orders may be executed without consideration of prices for the
same Electronic Complex Order that might be available on other
exchanges. Individual leg(s) of an Electronic Complex Order may be
executed at a price without regard to the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO'') as disseminated by the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') for that same leg.\6\ In additional, neither Electronic
Complex Orders nor the individual legs that comprise an Electronic
Complex Order are eligible for routing to other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The minimum price variations (``MPV'') are equivalent to the
Trading Differentials as prescribed in Rule 6.72(a).
    \6\ OPRA collects and disseminates the best bid, and the best
offer for all option series as submitted by each options exchange.
The NBBO represents the consolidated best bid and the best offer for
each series, as disseminated by OPRA. Pursuant to Rule 6.94(b)(7),
Complex Trades are exempt from NBBO trade through liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that while it is appropriate to exempt
individual leg prices of Electronic Complex Orders from NBBO trade
through liability, there is still need for some level of price
protection for Electronic Complex Orders that are entered at a net
debit/credit price that is greater (less) than the NBBO market for the
Electronic Complex Order as a whole. The Exchange now proposes to
enhance the processing of Electronic Complex Order by introducing a
Price Protection Filter for Electronic Complex Orders (``Filter'') that
will automatically reject an incoming Electronic Complex Order if the
net debit/credit limit price of the order is greater (less) than the
derived net debit/credit NBBO \7\ for the contra-side of the same
strategy by a set amount as specified by the Exchange (``Specified
Amount''). Electronic Complex Orders will be subject to the Filter, and
thus afforded price protection, provided OPRA is disseminating an NBBO
market for each series component of the Electronic Complex Order at the
time the order is received by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the proposed price protection filters will prevent the execution of an
incoming Electronic Complex Orders which is priced so far away from the
prevailing NBBO market for the contra-side of the same strategy, that
an execution of such order could cause significant price dislocation in
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will calculate the derived contra-side NBBO for
an Electronic Complex Order using the prevailing markets for all
individual legs of the order as disseminated by OPRA at the time the
order is received by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Specified Amount is applicable to the net debit/credit price of
the Electronic Complex Order and is not applicable to any single leg of
the order. The Exchange proposes to specify the following amounts as
the price protection settings for the Filter.

    .10 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the
Electronic Complex Order is .01;
    .15 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the
Electronic Complex Order is .05;
    and .30 for orders where the smallest MPV of any leg of the
Electronic Complex Order is .10.
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on a 1x1 ratio,
the Filter will be applied by the Specified Amounts above (.10, .15,
or .30).
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on an uneven
ratio (2x3 for example) where the MPV on all legs is the same, the
Filter will be applied by the Specified Amount multiplied by the
smallest contract

size leg of the ratio (.20, .30, or .60 on the 2x3 example).
    For Electronic Complex Orders that are entered on an uneven
ratio (2x3 for example) where the MPV of the legs are not the same
(.10 and .05 for example), the Filter will be applied by taking the
lesser of; the Specified Amount applicable to the smallest leg of
the Electronic Complex Order and multiplied by the contract size of
that leg (.60 in this example), or the Specified Amount of the
largest leg of the Electronic Complex Order multiplied by the
contract size of that leg (.45 in this example).
    The price protection filter will work as described below.

    Upon receipt by the Exchange of an Electronic Complex Order, the
Filter will check the net debit/credit price of the order against the
contra-side derived NBBO for the same strategy at the time of order
entry to determine whether the order's limit is within the specified
price. The contra-side NBBO will be derived from the net debit/credit
market for the same strategy by using the NBBO prices for the
individual leg markets as disseminated by OPRA that when aggregated
create a derived NBBO for that same strategy.\8\ The bid/ask of the
individual leg markets comprising the derived NBBO may be as
disseminated by one exchange, or comprised of a bid from one exchange
and an offer from a different exchange. The Filter will always use the
best bid and offer for each leg of the Electronic Complex Order when
determining what the derived NBBO is for the same strategy. If the
incoming Electronic Complex Order is priced at a net debit/credit such
that an execution could occur on NYSE Arca Options at a price that was
greater (less) than the derived contra-side NBBO by any amount
exceeding the Specified Amount for that same strategy, the order would
be rejected back to the OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the
reason for the reject. This would hold true even if the proposed
execution was within the Exchange's BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Markets for Electronic Complex Orders that may be available
in the NYSE Arca Complex Order Book (``COB'') or in a competing
exchanges complex order book, or spread book, are not disseminated
by OPRA or included in NBBO calculations and will not be used by the
Exchange to derive at an NBBO market for an Electronic Complex
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By rejecting the aggressively priced Electronic Complex Order, the
Filter prevents a possible execution from occurring at a price
significantly worse than the derived contra-side NBBO.

Examples of Price Protection Filter

Example 1
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic
Complex Order priced at a net debit with leg markets having the same
MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.00-2.10
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.05-1.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to buy
Jan 20 calls and sell Jan 25 calls, on a 1:1 ratio, priced at a 1.25
debit. This would imply that the buyer would be willing to pay 1.25 for
the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the individual
leg markets. Upon receipt, this order would be routed to the CME for
processing.
    Pursuant to this proposal, before routing the order to the CME the
Filter will first check the derived contra-side NBBO net debit/credit
market for the same strategy. In this case the NBBO market for the
contra side of the same strategy is offered at 1.05 (this price is
established by selling one Jan 20 for 2.10 and buying one Jan 25 for
1.05). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest-priced
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price
protection amount as described above. Which for this example .15.
Because the derived contra-side NBBO price of 1.05 is better than the
limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .20, which exceeds the
Filter setting of .15, the System will not route the order to the CME
for processing but will automatically reject the order back to the
entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the reason for the
rejection.
Example 2
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic
Complex Order priced at a net debit with leg markets having different
MPVs.
    Assume the following:

MPV = .10 and .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 5.00-5.30
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 2.10-2.20

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to buy
Jan 20 calls and sell Jan 25 calls, on a 1:1 ratio, priced at a 3.60
debit. (This would imply that the buyer would be willing to pay 3.60
for the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the
individual leg markets). Upon receipt, this order would be routed to
the CME for processing.
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the
CME, the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit
market for the contra side of the same strategy. In this case, the
contra-side NBBO for the same strategy is offered at 3.20 (this price
is established by selling one Jan 20 for 5.30 and buying one Jan 25 for
2.10). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest priced
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price
protection amount as described above. Which for this example would be
.15. Because the derived contra-side NBBO debit price of 3.20 is better
than the limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .40, which
exceeds the Filter setting of .15, the System would automatically
reject the order back to the entering OTP Holder with a reject code
explaining the reason for the rejection.
Example 3
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic
Complex Order priced at a net credit with leg markets having the same
MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .01
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.01

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell
Jan 20 call and buy Jan 25 call, priced at a .90 credit. (This would
imply that the seller would be willing to receive .90 for the strategy
as a whole without regard to the individual leg markets). Upon receipt,
this order would be sent to the CME for processing.
    Pursuant to this proposal however, before routing the Electronic
Complex Order to the CME the Filter will first check the derived NBBO
net debit/credit market for the contra side of the same strategy. In
this case the contra-side NBBO market is priced at 1.02 (this price is
established by buying one Jan 20 for 2.03 and selling one Jan 25 for
1.01). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest priced
leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate price
protection amount as described above. Which for this example would be
.10. Because the derived contra-side NBBO price of 1.02 is better than
the limit price of the Electronic Complex Order by .12, which exceeds
the Filter setting of .10, the System would automatically reject the
order back to the entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the
reason for the rejection.
Example 4
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic
Complex Order priced at a net credit on an uneven ratio with leg
markets having the same MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .01
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 2.03-2.08
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.00-1.02

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell
Jan 20 calls and buy Jan 25 calls, on a 2:3 ratio,

priced at a .75 credit. This would imply that the seller would be
willing to receive .75 for the strategy as a whole without regard to
the prices of the individual leg markets.
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the CME
the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit market
for contra side of the same strategy. In this case the contra-side NBBO
market is priced at 1.00 (this price is established by buying two Jan
20s for 2.03 each and selling three Jan 25s for 1.02 each (4.06 - 3.06
= 1.00)). The Filter will then look at the NBBO price of smallest-
priced leg of the Electronic Complex Order and apply the appropriate
price protection amount as described above. Which for this example
would be .10. However, because this order was entered on a ratio where
the smallest contract sized leg is greater than one contract, the
Filter is applied to the aggregate of the small sized leg of the ratio,
which in this case is .20 (.10 x 2 contracts). Because the derived
contra-side NBBO price of 1.00 is better than the limit price of the
Electronic Complex Order by .25, which exceeds the Filter setting of
.20, the Filter will automatically reject the order back to the
entering OTP Holder with a reject code explaining the reason for the
rejection.
Example 5
    This example shows how the Filter is applied to an Electronic
Complex Order priced at a net credit on an uneven ratio with leg
markets having a different MPV. Assume the following:

MPV = .10 and .05
    Jan 20 calls--NBBO 4.10-4.20
    Jan 25 calls--NBBO 1.90-2.00

    The Exchange receives an incoming Electronic Complex Order to sell
Jan 20 calls and buy Jan 25 calls, on a 2:3 ratio, priced at a 1.50
credit. (This would imply that the seller would be willing to receive
1.50 for the strategy as a whole without regard to the prices of the
individual leg markets).
    As proposed, before routing the Electronic Complex Order to the
CME, the Filter will first check the derived NBBO net debit/credit
market for the contra side of same strategy. In this case the contra-
side NBBO market is priced at 2.20 (this price is established by buying
two Jan 20s for 4.10 each and selling three Jan 25s for 2.00 each (8.20
- 6.00 = 2.20)). The Filter will then look at two scenarios to
determine what price protection level would apply. First, the Filter
will look at the NBBO price of the leg of the Electronic Complex Order
with the smallest contract size (Jan 20 leg) and determine the
appropriate price protection amount. Which in this example would be
.30. However, because the minimum contract size on the leg is greater
than one, the price protection amount is applied to the aggregate
contract size (2 contracts), which in this case would establish a
Filter setting of .60 (.30 x 2 contracts). Next, the Filter will look
at the NBBO price of the leg of the order with the largest contract
size (Jan 25 leg) and determine the appropriate price protection
amount, which in this case would be .15. However, because the minimum
contract size on the leg is greater than one, the price protection
amount is applied to the aggregate contract size of the leg (3
contracts), which in this case would establish a Filter setting of .45
(.15 x 3). The Filter will always apply the more conservative setting,
which in this case would be .45. Because the derived contra-side NBBO
price of 2.20 is better than the limit price of the Electronic Complex
Order by .70, which exceeds the Filter setting of .45, the Filter would
automatically reject the order back to the entering OTP Holder or OTP
Firm.
    The Filter is not intended to either offer price protection to bids
and offers at away markets, or to offer NBBO guaranteed pricing to
Electronic Complex Orders submitted to NYSE Arca. Rather the proposed
Filter would offer a level of protection to incoming Electronic Complex
Orders that are entered at a price so far away from the prevailing
contra-side NBBO market for the same strategy, that the execution of
such order could cause price dislocation in the market. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not propose to reject all orders with a limit price
greater (less) than the contra-side NBBO, just those that are greater
(less) by an amount as prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that rejecting such aggressively priced Electronic Complex
Orders will help to ensure that market participants do not receive an
execution at a price significantly inferior to the prevailing NBBO.
    The Exchange recognizes that under certain market conditions the
specified amounts prescribed by the Exchange, and applicable to the
Filter, may be overly restrictive at times and there could be
situations where the Exchange may need to temporarily widen the Filter
settings to accommodate market conditions in a given class. This could
happen because of, but not limited to, instances of extreme volatility,
the dissemination of non-firm markets by competing exchanges, or some
other condition that would lead the Exchange to believe that it would
not be reasonable to expect that a market participant could receive an
execution of an Electronic Complex Order at, or close to, the
prevailing contra-side NBBO market for a given strategy. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes that in the interest of a fair and orderly market,
the Filter settings may be temporarily modified by a Trading Official
to an amount greater than prescribed, on a class-by-class basis.
Trading Officials are presently authorized to make similar
determinations regarding such matters as position limits \9\ and quote-
width differentials.\10\ Permitting a Trading Official to temporarily
modify the price settings in the Filter is consistent with their
ability to recommend and enforce rules and regulations relating to
trading, access, order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the
Exchange which contributes to the Exchange's obligation to maintain a
fair and orderly market. If a Trading Official were to temporarily
modify the Filter settings, the Exchange will contemporaneously
announce the new settings to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms via Trader
Update.\11\ Temporary modifications to Filter settings will be
completed at the Exchange level. OTP Holders and OTP Firms will not
have to make any adjustments to proprietary systems to accommodate such
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 6.8.04.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.37(b).
    \11\ Trader Updates are disseminated electronically to all OTP
Holders and OTP Firms and posted to the Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\ which requires the
rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \13\ of the Act
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that this proposal
meets these requirements in that the proposed rule assists with the
maintenance of fair and orderly market by helping to mitigate the
potential risks associated with the entry of Complex Orders that are
entered at a price greater than the prevailing contra-side NBBO market
for the same strategy, potentially

resulting in executions at prices that are away from the best bid or
offer, thereby protecting investors from receiving executions at
inferior prices to what may be available at other market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a
market enhancement that provides greater protections from potentially
erroneous executions and the attendant risks of such executions to
market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposal
should provide an incentive for market participants to enter executable
interest in the CME that can help foster price discovery and
transparency thereby benefiting all market participants. The proposal
is structured to offer the same enhancement to all market participants,
regardless of account type, and will not impose a competitive burden on
any participant. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
mechanism will impose a burden on competing options exchanges. Rather,
the availability of this mechanism may foster more competition.
Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality that
distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it useful,
it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges will
move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that
this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market
place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality,
and technologies.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-103 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-103. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. 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-
NYSEArca-2013-103, and should be submitted on or before November 12,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24669 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 92811]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3079-011; ER11-2539-004; ER11-2540-004; ER11-
2542-004.
    Applicants: Tyr Energy, LLC, Plains End, LLC, Plains End II, LLC,
Rathdrum Power, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northwest region
of Tyr Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-544-000.
    Applicants: Beacon Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Beacon Solar 1, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 12/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-545-000.
    Applicants: Provider Power CT, LLC.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of market base tariff of
Provider Power CT, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-546-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Two GIA's and DSA's ACES
Projects WDT1425 and WDT1426 to be effective 12/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-547-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 SDGE RS Update to
Transmission Owner Tariff to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-548-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel Six Letter Agreements ACES
Projects to be effective 8/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-549-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing tariff revision
to Hybrid GT Pricing Logic to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    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: December 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30548 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60535-60536]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA--2011-0116]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Reopening of the record and extension of the nominations
deadline.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is reopening the record and extending the deadline for
submitting nominations for membership on the Federal Advisory Council
on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) until October 31, 2011.

DATES: Nominations for FACOSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent,
transmitted, or received) by October 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations for FACOSH, identified by Docket
No. OSHA-2011-0116, by any one of the following methods:
    Electronically: Nominations, including attachments, may be
submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting
nominations;
    Facsimile: If the nomination, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648;
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit three copies of nominations and supporting materials to
the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0116, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Department of Labor's and OSHA Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.--4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All nominations for FACOSH must include the agency
name and docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No.
OSHA-2011-0116). Because of security-related procedures, submitting
nominations by regular mail may result in a significant

delay in their receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office, at the
address above, for information about security procedures for submitting
nominations by hand delivery, express delivery, and messenger or
courier service. For additional information on submitting nominations,
see 76 FR 16897.
    Submissions in response to this Federal Register notice, including
personal information provided, will be posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birth dates.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as OSHA's
July 7, 2011 notice requesting nominations for FACOSH membership are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Both notices, as well as news
releases and other relevant information, are also available on OSHA's
webpage at http://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Francis Meilinger, OSHA, Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For general information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, OSHA, Office of
Federal Agency Programs, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, Room N-
3622, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA is reopening the record and extending
the deadline for submitting nominations for membership on FACOSH until
October 31, 2011. OSHA is extending the FACOSH nominations deadline
because of a lack of qualified candidates being nominated for FACOSH
membership. For instructions and information about submitting
nominations, see 76 FR 16897.
    On July 7, 2011, OSHA published a Federal Register notice inviting
interested parties to submit nominations for FACOSH membership by
September 6, 2011 (76 FR 16897). OSHA requests nominations to fill six
vacancies on FACOSH, three labor and three management members. One
vacancy occurred during CY 2010 and five vacancies will occur in CY
2011. The Secretary of Labor will appoint new members to three-year
terms.
    FACOSH is authorized to advise the Secretary of Labor on all
matters relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal
employees (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668),
5 U.S.C. 7902, Executive Orders 12196 and 13511). This includes
providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum the number of
injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce and how to encourage
the establishment and maintenance of effective occupational safety and
health programs in each Federal department and agency.

Authority and Signature:

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App), Executive Order 12196 and 13511,
29 CFR part 1960 (Basic Program Elements for Federal Employee
Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters), 41 CFR
part 102-3, Secretary of Labor's Order 4-2010 (75 FR 55355, 9/10/2010).

    Signed at Washington, DC on September 26, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-25042 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53252-53254]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Chicago, IL, to
Detroit-Pontiac, MI, Regional Passenger Rail System

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

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice of intent (Notice) to advise the
public that FRA, with the Michigan Department of Transportation
(Michigan DOT), will jointly prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to evaluate passenger rail service improvements along
the Chicago, Illinois to Detroit-Pontiac, Michigan regional passenger
rail corridor (the Corridor), in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Partnering state agencies in
the development of the EIS are Illinois and Indiana Departments of
Transportation (IDOT and IN DOT).
    The objectives of the Tier 1 EIS are to evaluate a reasonable range
of alternatives, select a rail corridor, and make decisions regarding
future improvements to intercity passenger rail service provided in the
corridor, including increased train frequency, reduced trip time, and
improved on-time performance. Alternatives under consideration will
include a no-action (no-build) alternative, as well as multiple build
alternatives between Chicago, Illinois and Porter, Indiana, near Battle
Creek, Michigan, and in the Detroit, Michigan region. The build
alternatives may include infrastructure improvements to the existing
rail corridor, the development of a new rail corridor, or a combination
of both.
    FRA is issuing this Notice to solicit public and agency input in
the development of the scope of the EIS and to advise the public that
FRA and Michigan DOT will conduct outreach activities for the
preparation of the EIS. To ensure that all significant issues are
identified and considered, all interested parties are invited to
comment on the proposed scope of the environmental review. Comments on
the scope of the EIS, including the proposed Project's purpose and
need, alternatives to be considered, the impacts to be evaluated, and
the methodologies to be used in the evaluation are encouraged.

DATES: Written comment on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS should be
provided to Michigan DOT by October 15, 2012. A series of four (4)
scoping meetings on September 12, 13, 26, and 27, 2012 will be hosted
by Michigan DOT along the Corridor at the times and locations
identified in the ADDRESSES section below. In addition, for those who
cannot make these meetings, Michigan DOT will host an online, self-
directed public scoping meeting. The online public scoping meeting will
be available following the publication of this Notice at
www.GreatLakesRail.org until October 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments may also be mailed or emailed until October 15,
2012 to Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi, Project Manager, Michigan DOT, 425 West
Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909 and email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If a member of the public wishes to
participate in the scoping process and cannot attend one of the in-
person scoping meetings, and does not have access to the Internet, they
can request an informational scoping package and comment form by
contacting Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi at the above address, or directly at
(517) 373-7674 and toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Scoping meetings will be held on: Wednesday, September 12, 4 to 7
p.m. at Chicago Union Station in the Union Gallery Room (off the Great
Hall), 500 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois; Thursday,
September 13, 4 to 7 p.m. at the Michigan City-City Hall, 100 East
Michigan Boulevard, Michigan City, Indiana; Wednesday, September 26, 4
to 7 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel, 5801 Southfield Expressway,
Dearborn, Michigan; and Thursday, September 27, 4 to 7 p.m. at the
Radisson Hotel, 100 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan (parking
validation will be available for attendees parking in the structure
across the street from the Radisson Hotel).
    With advanced notice of seven (7) days, Michigan DOT can make
additional accommodations for persons with disabilities, and/or limited
English speaking ability, and persons needing auxiliary aids or
services of interpreters, signers, readers, or large print. Please
contact Mr. Bob Parsons, Michigan DOT Planning directly at (517) 373-
9534 and toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER> to request accommodations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Andrea Martin, Environmental
Protection Specialist, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop 20),
Washington, DC 20590 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi, Project Manager, Michigan DOT, 425 West
Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909 at<PHONE_NUMBER> and
toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information and documents regarding the Tier 1 EIS and
environmental process will be made available for the duration of the
environmental process at www.GreatLakesRail.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac Passenger
Rail Corridor Program EIS is being developed to be consistent with the
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), a cooperative, multi-agency
effort that began in 1996 and originally involved nine Midwest states
(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Ohio, and Wisconsin), as well as FRA and Amtrak. The MWRRI elements
include: use of 3,000 miles of existing rail right of way to connect
rural and urban areas; operation of a Chicago hub and spoke passenger
rail system; introduction of modern, high-speed trains operating at
speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph); and multi-modal connections to
improve system access. The MWRRI envisions developing a passenger rail
system that offers business and leisure travelers shorter travel times,
additional train frequencies, improved reliability and connections
between urban centers and smaller communities. The Tier 1 EIS will
evaluate alternatives for the Corridor considering the MWRRI objective
``to meet current and future regional travel needs through significant
improvements to the level and quality of passenger rail service''
(MWRRI Executive Report, September 2004).
    Study Area: The Corridor extends 304 miles from Chicago Union
Station, in downtown Chicago, Illinois on the west to a terminal in
Pontiac, Michigan to the east. The Corridor is a federally designated
high speed rail (HSR) corridor with passenger service currently
provided by Amtrak's Wolverine line. The Corridor is also one of the
heaviest freight railroad routes in the country. The study area
identified for the Tier 1 EIS includes portions of Cook County,
Illinois; Lake, Porter, and La Porte Counties in Indiana; and Berrien,
Cass, Kalamazoo, Calhoun,

Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne, and Oakland Counties in Michigan.
    Service Today: Intercity passenger rail service on the Corridor
currently includes three daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit-
Pontiac (Amtrak Wolverine Service), with an additional daily round trip
between Chicago and Battle Creek, Michigan (Amtrak Blue Water Service),
which continues beyond the Corridor to Port Huron, Michigan. In 2011,
over 503,290 passenger trips were made between Chicago and Detroit
using Amtrak's Wolverine line. Currently, passenger trains take
approximately 6.5 hours to travel from Chicago's Union Station to
Pontiac, Michigan. Existing passenger trains serve stations in Chicago,
Illinois; Hammond-Whiting, Indiana; Michigan City, Indiana; and New
Buffalo, Niles, Dowagiac, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Albion, Jackson, Ann
Arbor, Dearborn, Detroit, Royal Oak, Birmingham and Pontiac, Michigan.
    When operating on the Corridor, the existing Amtrak Wolverine
Service travels over tracks that are owned by several different
railroads. In Illinois, the Amtrak Wolverine Service travels over
Amtrak-owned track near Union Station and then transitions to track
owned by Norfolk Southern until Porter, Indiana. Between Porter,
Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Amtrak Wolverine Service travels
over Amtrak-owned track, which is the only section of track on the
Corridor (and outside the Northeast Corridor) that allows trains to
travel up to 110 mph (80 of the 97 miles of this Amtrak-owned track
allow this maximum speed). In 2011, Michigan DOT entered into a
purchase and sale agreement with Norfolk Southern, with financial
assistance from FRA, pursuant to which Michigan DOT will acquire the
135 mile Norfolk Southern right-of-way between Kalamazoo and Dearborn,
Michigan (with certain limited exceptions). At the time of publication
of this Notice, that transaction had not yet closed. Once the
transaction has been completed, Michigan DOT will own the right-of-way
between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan (with certain limited
exceptions), and Norfolk Southern will operate freight trains over that
track pursuant to an easement. From Dearborn to West Detroit Junction,
Michigan, the Amtrak Wolverine Service travels primarily on track owned
and operated by Conrail Shared Assets Operations, which is jointly
owned by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern. In addition, Canadian
National Railroad owns the Corridor track between West Detroit Junction
and Pontiac, Michigan, as well as a two-mile section of track within
Battle Creek, Michigan.
    Travel Demand: Over the last decade, there has been a demonstrated
increase in demand for passenger rail within the Corridor. This growth
in passenger rail travel will be diminished if existing issues
affecting reliability and comfort are not addressed. Population growth
in the Midwest is expected to result in increased congestion on area
roadways, especially in the metropolitan areas. Michigan as a whole and
Detroit in particular have seen population shrink, which emphasizes the
need to implement actions to increase the attractiveness and
competitiveness of the area for new business growth and reinvestment.
Other pertinent demographics are projected to change that are likely to
impact future ridership as well. In the near future, the number of
people over age 65 will steadily increase as the baby boom generation
ages. This population will begin to seek alternatives to driving
automobiles as this age group's ability to safely operate motor
vehicles decreases. Passenger rail can provide a needed alternative to
driving the long distances between Chicago and Detroit-Pontiac. MWRRI
studies report that long-term population, employment and income across
the MWRRI states are all projected to grow consistently through year
2040. This growth is expected to result in a 13 percent increase in
intercity travel throughout the Midwest between 2010 and 2020 and a
further 28 percent increase by 2040.
    Trip Time: The current passenger rail service is not competitive
with other modes of travel. In 2011, Michigan's Amtrak corridor had the
worst on-time performance of the Amtrak system, being on time only
33.1% of the time due to infrastructure and facility deficiencies.
Amtrak's shortest existing service between Detroit and Chicago is
estimated at 5 hours and 36 minutes. If infrastructure improvements are
made to alleviate the congested conditions within the corridor and
conditions are improved to allow train speeds to increase to 110 mph
along the Corridor, end-to-end Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac travel time
could be reduced by approximately 2 hours. This travel time savings
would make passenger rail service more likely to succeed in attracting
ridership, increasing mobility and providing greater environmental
benefits within the Corridor.
    Travel Options: The lack of existing capacity and the sharing of
track between freight and passenger trains currently create operational
problems that restrict both mobility and economic development. These
restrictions are demonstrated by the lengthy delays for existing
passenger rail service operating within the study area, especially
between Chicago, Illinois and Porter, Indiana, near Battle Creek,
Michigan, as well as in the Detroit, Michigan region. In addition,
infrastructure improvements have been identified by the MWRRI as
necessary for enhanced passenger rail service within the Corridor. This
includes operational improvements at Chicago Union Station and upgraded
track and signaling between Kalamazoo and Detroit-Pontiac. Station
facilities along the Corridor are also not ideal for providing easy
access to passenger rail. A good indicator of the track condition is
demonstrated by the issuance of a number of slow orders by Norfolk
Southern including those most recently issued in March 2012. These slow
orders are issued to decrease the maximum speed on sections of track
where there are safety concerns. This affects passenger rail service
performance. The latest slow order decreased speeds to 25-30 mph in the
affected sections of track between Kalamazoo and Detroit.
    Infrastructure investment needed to increase train speed will also
allow an increase in the frequency of service. Enhanced capacity of
Corridor infrastructure would make the service more reliable and more
likely to succeed in attracting ridership, increasing mobility and
enhancing transit oriented economic development opportunities near
proposed stations. Improved intercity passenger rail service in the
Corridor would provide a reliable alternative travel mode to avoid
increasingly congested Midwest highways and airports and substantial
travel delays resulting from existing conditions, including peak hour
highway delays, security, and related delays associated with air
travel, and adverse weather conditions. The need to reduce highway
congestion and delays at airports, and to ease the transportation-
related effects of further population growth over the long term, is
becoming increasingly imperative within the Corridor.
    Environmental Review Process: FRA and Michigan DOT will use a
tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, in the completion of
the environmental review of the Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac Passenger
Rail Corridor Program. Tiering is a staged environmental review process
applied to environmental reviews for complex projects. This process
will address broad corridor-level issues and alternatives. Subsequent
phases or tiers will analyze, at a greater level of detail,

narrower site-specific proposals based on the decisions made in the
Tier 1 EIS.
    Tier 1: The Tier 1 EIS and any subsequent environmental documents
will be developed in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.) implementing NEPA and
FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545;
May 26, 1999). The Tier 1 assessment will result in an EIS with the
appropriate level of detail for corridor-level decisions and will
address broad overall issues of concern, including but not limited to:
     Confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Confirming the study area appropriate to assess reasonable
alternatives.
     Identifying a comprehensive set of goals and objectives
for the corridor in conjunction with Program stakeholders. These goals
and objectives will be crafted to allow comprehensive evaluation of all
aspects of the Corridor necessary to achieve the goals, including train
operations, vehicles, and infrastructure.
     Identifying the range of reasonable alternatives to be
considered, consistent with the current and planned use of the corridor
and the existing services within and adjacent to the study area, as
well as considering a no-action (no-build) alternative.
     Developing alternative evaluation criteria to identify
alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and
those that do not.
     Identifying the general alignment(s) of the reasonable
build alternatives.
     Identifying general right-of-way requirements for the
reasonable build alternatives.
     Identifying, at a corridor planning level, the
infrastructure and equipment investment requirements for the reasonable
build alternatives.
     Including the consideration of the no-build alternative
which will be studied as the baseline for comparison with the build
alternatives. The no-build alternative represents other transportation
modes such as auto, air travel, intercity bus, and existing rail and
the physical characteristics and capacities as they exist at the time
of the Tier 1 EIS, with planned and funded improvements that will be in
place at the time the Project becomes operational.
     Evaluating and describing, at a corridor planning level,
the potential environmental consequences (benefits and impacts to the
built and natural environment) associated with the reasonable
alternative alignments and proposed changes in passenger rail train
frequency, speed, and on-time performance.
     Establishing the timing and sequencing of independent
actions to maintain a state of good repair and to implement the
proposed action.
     Selecting a corridor route alignment for further study at
Tier 2.
     Addressing subsequent component actions for Tier 2 NEPA
documentation as described below.
    Tier 2: The second tier assessment(s) will address component
projects to be implemented within the general corridor identified in
the Tier 1 EIS, and will incorporate by reference the data and
evaluations included in the Tier 1 EIS. Subsequent evaluations will
concentrate on the issues specific to the component of the selected
alternative identified in the Tier 1 EIS, identify the site-specific
alternatives that meet the purpose and need for each component project,
and analyze the specific environmental consequences and measures
necessary to mitigate environmental impacts at a site-specific level of
detail.
    Scoping and Public Involvement: FRA encourages broad participation
in the EIS process during scoping and subsequent review of the
resulting environmental documents. FRA and Michigan DOT are inviting
comments and suggestions regarding the scope of the Tier 1 EIS from all
interested parties, to ensure that all issues are addressed related to
this proposal and that any significant impacts are identified. Comments
or questions concerning the proposed Program and/or the Tier 1 EIS
should be directed to Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi, Michigan DOT at the above
address. Letters that include this Notice and related study area will
be sent to the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, Native
American tribes and to private organizations who might have previously
expressed or who are known to have an interest in this proposal.
    Michigan DOT will lead the outreach activities, beginning with the
four (4) scoping meetings and the online scoping meeting described
above. Public involvement initiatives, including public meetings,
newsletters, and outreach will be held throughout the course of this
study. Opportunities for public participation will be announced through
mailings, notices, advertisements, press releases and at
www.GreatLakesRail.org.

Corey Hill,
Director, Rail Project Development and Delivery, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-21587 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68370-68374]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0876; Product Identifier 2019-NM-070-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that cracking was
discovered in a channel within a structural support member for the
rudder quadrant, rudder feel unit assembly, and environmental control
system due to fatigue. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections of the rudder quadrant box assembly for any cracking, and
modification of the rudder quadrant box assembly. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 30,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc.,

400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0876; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0876;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-070-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2019-11, dated March 22, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and
BD-700-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0876.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that cracking was
discovered in a channel within a structural support member for the
rudder quadrant, rudder feel unit assembly, and environmental control
system due to fatigue. The FAA is proposing this AD to address cracking
in the rudder quadrant support structure, which can lead to progressive
deterioration in the performance of the systems it supports, and could
eventually lead to uncommanded rudder movement and bleed air leakage.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-054, dated October 1,
2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-5013, dated October 1,
2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-6012, dated October 1,
2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-029, dated October
1, 2018.
    This service information describes procedures for repetitive
detailed visual inspections of the rudder quadrant box assembly for any
cracking. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models.
    Bombardier also issued the following service information:
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-052, dated October 1,
2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-6010, dated October 1,
2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-027, dated October
1, 2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-5011, dated October 1,
2018.
    This service information describes procedures for modification of
the rudder quadrant box assembly. The modification includes surface and
bolt-hole eddy current inspections for cracking of the left-hand (LH)
channel; a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the forward and
aft half ribs and bottom and top skins; replacement of the rudder
quadrant box half ribs, air systems support fitting, and LH channel;
and installation of new rudder quadrant box back-up fittings. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
    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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2019-11, dated March 22, 2019,
states that if any cracking is found during the repetitive detailed
visual inspections of the rudder quadrant box assembly, the repair can
be done within 100 flight cycles after the inspection. However, this AD
requires that, for the LH channel, if the length of the crack exceeds
the upper limit, the repair must be done before further flight. In
addition, if the length of the crack for the LH channel is within the
upper limit, the repair must be done within 50 flight cycles. These
differences have been coordinated with TCCA.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 123 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs For Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                 Labor cost                               Parts cost                  product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170 per       $0.................................        $170 per     $20,910 per
 inspection cycle.                                                                    inspection      inspection
                                                                                cycle           cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 work-hours x $85 per hour = $3,910.            $355           $4,265
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0876; Product Identifier 2019-
NM-070-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 30, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
9001 through 9844 inclusive, and 9998.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that cracking was discovered in
a channel within a structural support member for the rudder
quadrant, rudder feel unit assembly, and environmental control
system due to fatigue. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracking in the rudder quadrant support structure, which can lead to
progressive deterioration in the performance of the systems it
supports, and could eventually lead to uncommanded rudder movement
and bleed air leakage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 2,900 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, and that have not
been modified as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, do
a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the rudder quadrant box
assembly, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in figure
1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 2,000 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within
1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 2,000 total flight
cycles or more, but fewer than 2,900 total flight cycles, as of the
effective date of this AD: Inspect within 100

flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE19.076

(h) Corrective Actions for Inspection Findings

    If any cracking is found during the inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)
of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (4) of this AD.
    (1) If any crack of 1.20 inch (30.48 mm) or longer is found on
the forward (FWD) upper half rib: Do the actions within 100 flight
cycles after discovery of the crack.
    (2) If any crack of 0.40 inch (10.16 mm) or longer is found on
the AFT lower half rib, do the actions within 100 flight cycles
after discovery of the crack.
    (3) If any crack is found on the left-hand (LH) channel that has
grown from the air system's support fitting aft fastener hole to the
adjacent air systems support fitting fastener hole (which is 0.625
inch (15.88 mm) from hole edge to hole edge) or longer, do the
actions before further flight.
    (4) If any crack is found on the LH channel that is less than
0.625 inch (15.88 mm) from hole edge to hole edge (which is the
distance from the air system's support fitting aft fastener hole to
the adjacent air system's support fitting fastener hole), do the
actions within 50 flight cycles after discovery of the crack.

(i) Modification of the Rudder Quadrant Box Assembly

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of
this AD, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Modify the
rudder quadrant box assembly. The modification includes surface and
bolt-hole eddy current inspections for cracking of the left-hand
channel; a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the forward
and aft half ribs and bottom and top skins; applicable corrective
actions; replacement of the rudder quadrant box half ribs, air
systems support fitting, and LH channel; and installation of new
rudder quadrant box back-up fittings. Do the modification and
associated actions in accordance with paragraph 2.B., 2.C., and
2.D., of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin specified in figure 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD; except,
where the applicable service bulletin specifies to contact
Bombardier for appropriate action, corrective actions must be done
before further flight in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 2,900 total flight
cycles or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, do the required
actions before the accumulation of 3,000 total flight cycles, or
within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 2,900 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, do the required
actions within 100 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs
first, after the effective date of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE19.077

(j) Alternative Modification

    Airplanes that have been modified as specified by any
modification identified in paragraph (j)(1) through (4) of this AD
(which are not required by this AD), meet the requirements specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Repair Modification R700T400669, Revision C,
dated January 19, 2018, or Bombardier Repair Modification
R700T400669, Revision G, dated May 30, 2018.
    (2) Bombardier In-Service Modification IS700-53-0024, Revision
A, dated July 24, 2018.
    (3) Bombardier Service Request for Product Support Action
(SRPSA) 000220372.
    (4) Bombardier Service Request for Product Support Action
(SRPSA) 000271526.

(k) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD
terminates all of the requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Canada's
TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the
approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2019-11, dated March 22,
2019, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0876.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 21, 2019.
Dorr Anderson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25719 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19221-19223]
[FR Doc No: E9-9652]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0482; FRL-8898-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Information Collection Activities Associated With
SmartWay Transport Partnership; EPA ICR No. 2265.01, OMB Control No.
2060--NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0482 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: SmartWay Transport Partnership, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Air Docket, EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0482. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Kearns, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: kearns.denise
@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-

HQ-OAR-2007-0482, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0482

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action
include private and public organizations that join the SmartWay
Transport Partnership; freight industry representatives who engage in
activities related to the SmartWay Partnership; and representative
samplings of consumers in the general public. These entities may be
affected by EPA efforts to assess the effectiveness and value of the
SmartWay program, awareness of the SmartWay brand, and ideas for
improving and developing SmartWay.
    Title: Information Collection Activities Associated with SmartWay
Transport Partnership.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2265.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) supports the
SmartWay Transport Partnership, an energy conservation deployment
program that aims to improve fuel efficiency and curb greenhouse gas
emissions generated by the freight industry (air, rail, water, truck,
transit, pipeline). OAR developed the SmartWay Transport Partnership
under directives outlined in Subtitle D of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 which calls on EPA to assess the energy and air quality impacts of
activities within the freight industry. These activities include long-
duration truck idling, the development and promotion of strategies for
reducing idling, fuel consumption, and negative air quality effects.
SmartWay's objectives also are consistent with the Federal Technology
Transfer Act and other laws that support collaborative partnerships
between government and industry.
    The partnership is open to organizations that own, operate, and
contract fleet operations, including both truck carriers and shippers.
``Affiliate'' organizations that do not operate fleets, but that are
working to strengthen the freight industry, such as industry trade
associations, state and local transportation agencies and environmental
groups, also may sign on as SmartWay partners.
    All organizations that join SmartWay, including carriers, shippers
and affiliates are asked to provide EPA with information.
    Specifically, as a first step toward partnering with EPA,
organizations that operate fleets, such as freight carriers, shippers
and logistics management companies, commit to assessing and improving
the environmental performance of their freight activities. A company
joins SmartWay when it completes the Freight Logistics Environmental
and Energy Transportation (FLEET) Performance Model and submits the
model's results, along with a signed partnership agreement to EPA. The
data outputs from the FLEET Model are used by companies to establish a
baseline and set goals for reducing fuel and emissions over the next 3
years. Under their partnership agreement, companies also agree to
annually update their FLEET model and to provide those updated results
to EPA.
    Data outputs from the FLEET Model are vital to the SmartWay
Partnership for several reasons. First, the data provides confirmation
that EPA's SmartWay Partners have set a baseline, established
objectives and are meeting those objectives as outlined in their
Partnership Agreement. The FLEET Model outputs also make it possible
for EPA to assist our Partners in adjusting their commitments, as
appropriate, and to update them with environmental performance and
technology information that will empower them to improve their
efficiency and achieve their environmental goals. This

information also improves EPA's knowledge and understanding of the
environmental and energy impacts associated with goods movement, and
the effectiveness of both proven and emerging strategies to lessen
those impacts.
    In addition to requesting FLEET Model data and annual updates on
fuel consumption and environmental performance, EPA may ask its
SmartWay Partners for other kinds of information. These requests for
information may be made of all our SmartWay Partners, including our
affiliates. Some examples of this kind of information could include
opinions and test data on the effectiveness of new and emerging
technology applications; numeric data on sales volumes associated with
SmartWay recommended vehicle equipment and technologies; the reach and
value of partnering with EPA through the SmartWay program; and
awareness of the SmartWay brand. In some instances, EPA might also
query other freight industry representatives (not just SmartWay
Partners), including trade and professional associations, nonprofit
environmental groups, energy, and community organizations, and schools
and universities, and a small sampling of the general public.
    Burden Statement: Total annual burden is estimated at 10,081 hours.
The estimated number of Respondent Partners is 1,462 the first year,
with a growth of 255 Partners per year projected into the future. The
estimated average burden time per Respondent is 4.6 hours annually. EPA
notes that this is a weighted average across all SmartWay Partners,
regardless of whether they are affiliates, shippers, carriers, or
logistics companies. The weighted average also includes 300 consumer
and industry respondents who spend far less time, providing the
SmartWay program with basic information on their awareness of the
program.
    Among Respondent Partners, the burden hours are typically higher
for larger companies with more complex fleets, than for smaller
companies. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Sarah Dunham,
Acting Director, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. E9-9652 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P