[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7251-7252]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-5194; Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-6]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Coldwater, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Coldwater, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Commanche County
Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-
5194; Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-6, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_offederal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the

authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This
rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
would establish Class E airspace at Commanche County Airport,
Coldwater, KS.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-5194/
Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-6.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

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

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Commanche
County Airport, Coldwater, KS, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Coldwater, KS [New]

Commanche County Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'22'' N., long. 099[deg]19'55'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward From 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.5-mile radius of Commanche County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 3, 2016.
Vonnie Royal,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-02674 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28577-28582]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13142]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0050; FRL-9979-66--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
revise New Source Review (NSR) regulations. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the portions of a SIP revision submitted by the
State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), on May 28, 2009, that modify the definitions of
``baseline actual emissions.'' This action is being proposed pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0050, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval
that contains changes to Tennessee's SIP-approved major NSR permitting
regulations at Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR)
1200-3-9-.01--``Construction Permits,'' including the adoption of
federal requirements and the modification of certain other
provisions.\1\ In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the portions
of this SIP submission that make changes to the definitions of
``baseline actual emissions'' in Tennessee's SIP-approved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) regulations at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(4)--``Prevention of
Significant Air Quality Deterioration'' and 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)--
``Nonattainment Areas,'' respectively.\2\ Tennessee's NSR regulations
at TAPCR 1200-3-9--.01 were last revised in the SIP on July 25, 2013
(78 FR 44886).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The major NSR program, established in parts C and D of title
I of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40
CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and
permitting program applicable to new major stationary sources of
regulated NSR pollutants and major modifications at existing major
stationary sources. A major modification is defined as any physical
change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary
source that would result in a significant emissions increase of a
regulated NSR pollutant and a significant net emissions increase of
that pollutant from the major stationary source. See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i).
    \2\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR
permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-.166, 52.21,
52.24, and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of
three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)--
``attainment areas''--as well as areas where there is insufficient
information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS--
``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in part D
of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification activities that do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs
are referred to as the NSR programs.

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

II. Background

    On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD
and NNSR regulations. See 67 FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as the
2002 NSR Rule). These revisions included several major changes to the
major NSR program, including the addition of an actual-to-projected-
actual emissions test and the use of ``baseline actual emissions'' for
determining major NSR applicability for existing emissions units. For
projects involving multiple existing emissions units, the definitions
require the use of one consecutive 24-month period to determine
baseline emissions for the emissions units being changed and allows for
the use of different consecutive 24-month baseline periods for each
regulated pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv), 51.166(b)(47), and
52.21(b)(48). EPA included this language in the definitions because NSR
is, and has always been treated as, a pollutant-specific program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Technical Support Document for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment Area New Source
Review (NSR): Reconsideration,'' pp. 14-15, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/petitionresponses10-30-03.pdf, and included in the docket for this
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2007, EPA approved SIP submittals from TDEC
incorporating revisions to Tennessee's major NSR regulations in
response to the 2002 NSR Rule (as modified in subsequent EPA
rulemakings).\4\ In defining ``baseline actual emissions'' in its major
NSR regulations, Tennessee elected not to adopt the provision in the
federal definitions that allows the use of different consecutive 24-
month baseline periods for each regulated pollutant for projects
involving multiple existing emission units. Therefore, Tennessee's SIP-
approved regulations only allow the same 24-month period to be chosen
for all regulated NSR pollutants when calculating baseline actual
emissions for major NSR applicability determinations for projects
involving multiple emissions units. Compared to the federal
definitions, Tennessee's SIP-approved regulations offer less
flexibility in determining baseline actual emissions for these
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA published rules on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) and
June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), modifying the 2002 NSR Rule. Sometimes,
these three rules are collectively referred to as ``NSR reform.''
For more information on NSR reform, see https://www.epa.gov/nsr/nsr-regulatory-actions#nsrreform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 28, 2009, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision that would,
among other things, change the definitions of ``baseline actual
emissions'' in its SIP-approved major NSR regulations to allow for the
use of different 24-month periods for each regulated NSR pollutant for
projects involving multiple emissions units, but only under certain
limiting circumstances not included in the federal definitions. The
text of Tennessee's proposed changes to its SIP-approved definitions of
``baseline actual emissions'' is provided in section III along with
EPA's assessment under CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) prohibits EPA
from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
(as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.

III. Analysis of Tennessee's Submittal

    Tennessee's May 28, 2009, submittal revises the SIP-approved
definitions of ``baseline actual emissions'' at TAPCR 1200-3-
9-.01(4)(b)(45)(i)(III) and 1200-3-9-.01(4)(b)(45)(ii)(IV) for PSD, and
1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(I)III and 1200-3-
9-.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(II)IV for NNSR. The relevant portion of the SIP-
approved definitions read as follows:

    ``For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves
multiple emissions units, only one consecutive 24-month period must
be used to determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions
units being changed.''

    The proposed language reads as follows (strikethrough indicates
language removed and underlined text indicates language added):
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JN18.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JN18.008

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

    Accordingly, a project involving multiple emissions units that
would be subject to major NSR permitting under the current SIP-approved
regulations would not be subject to these requirements under the
revised definitions if it met the limiting criteria identified above
for the use of pollutant-specific baseline periods. As noted above,
EPA's major NSR rules do not contain such limiting criteria. Under the
federal major NSR rules, a state must adopt the federal definitions
into its SIP unless the state's definitions are more stringent than, or
at least as stringent as, the federal definitions. See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's
revisions to its SIP-approved definitions of ``baseline actual
emissions'' are more stringent than the federal definitions given the
limiting criteria and are therefore allowable changes to the State's
SIP-approved NSR program pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b).
    As noted above, section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from
approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and RFP (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The State is allowed to
relax its SIP regulations as long as section 110(l) is met. EPA
proposes to determine that the proposed changes to the Tennessee SIP,
as described above, would not violate section 110(l) for the reasons
discussed below.
    First, Tennessee's proposed changes will maintain the State program
at a more stringent level than the federal NSR requirements. Unlike the
federal rules, Tennessee's revised rules only allow for the use of
different 2-year baseline periods under the limiting condition that
``one or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in
amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than
operations at a lower production or utilization rate.'' The revised
rules then provide qualifying examples that would satisfy this
condition, such as the voluntary use of cleaner fuels, lower volatile
organic compounds coatings, improvements in control efficiency,
addition of a control device, and alternate production methods, raw
materials, or products that result in lower emissions of one or more
pollutants. The permittee bears the burden of demonstrating that the
limiting conditions of the regulation have been met, and if the
demonstration is approved by the TDEC Technical Secretary, the
demonstration and the Technical Secretary's approval must be included
in the permit record. Accordingly, Tennessee's revised rules encourage
sources to reduce emissions in order to qualify for the use of
multiple, pollutant-specific baselines.
    EPA also believes that the impact, if any, on air quality as a
result of the proposed change would be small given

the nature of the actual-to-projected-actual test and the limited
applicability of the multiple baseline provision for the following
reasons. First, the definition of ``projected actual emissions''
provides that the owner or operator ``[s]hall exclude, in calculating
any increase in emissions that results from the particular project,
that portion of the unit's emissions following the project that an
existing unit could have accommodated during the consecutive 24-month
period used to establish the baseline actual emissions under part
(b)45. of this paragraph and that are also unrelated to the particular
project, including any increased utilization due to product demand
growth.'' TAPCR 1200-03-09-.01(4)(b)38.(i)(III). Under this provision,
once the qualifying portion of any projected emissions increase is
excluded, the result is the increase from the project. Accordingly, in
most cases, the baseline actual emissions rate would not change the
calculated emissions increase from an existing emissions unit. Second,
the provision does not apply to new sources or new units at existing
sources.\8\ Third, as it relates to existing emissions units, the
change only applies to projects that involve multiple emissions units
and only has a potential air quality impact on those projects that
might otherwise have triggered PSD or NNSR applicability for more than
one pollutant. Finally, the provision is further restricted to
permittees who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Technical
Secretary, that emissions during the single baseline period were less
than otherwise permitted for reasons other than operations at a lower
production or utilization rate. In addition to narrowing the number of
sources that qualify for the use of different baseline periods, this
restriction also encourages the use of voluntary emissions reduction
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the State is currently attaining all of the NAAQS except
for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS in a portion
of Sullivan County.\9\ Previous nonattainment areas for other NAAQS
have all been redesignated to attainment, as shown in Table 1. Air
quality in Tennessee has been improving in recent years, and Table 1
includes the available margin between current air quality monitoring
design values, in micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and parts per
billion (ppb), and the most current corresponding NAAQS in each
redesignated (maintenance) area.\10\ Additionally, none of the monitors
in Tennessee outside of the Sullivan County SO2
nonattainment area show violating air quality data for any NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On May 12, 2017, TDEC submitted a plan to EPA to attain the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Sullivan County.
    \10\ Air quality design values for all criteria air pollutants
are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                                         Table 1--Current Air Quality Status in Tennessee for Maintenance Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Margin  relative to
         Maintenance areas            NAAQS for which  area is            Status              Current  NAAQS        2015-2017 DV        current  NAAQS
                                            maintenance                                                                               with  2014-2016 DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga........................  1997 annual PM2.5 (15.0    Redesignated.............  12.0 [mu]g/m\3\....  9.0 [mu]g/m\3\.....  -3 [mu]g/m\3\
                                      [mu]g/m\3\).                                                                                (25.0%)
Knoxville..........................  2008 ozone (75.0 ppb)....  Redesignated.............  70 ppb.............  68 * ppb...........  -2 ppb (2.9%)
Knoxville..........................  1997 annual PM2.5 (15.0    Redesignated.............  12.0 [mu]g/m\3\....  10.0 [mu]g/m\3\....  -2 [mu]g/m\3\
                                      [mu]g/m\3\).                                                                                (16.7%)
Knoxville..........................  2006 24-hour PM2.5 (35     Redesignated.............  35 [mu]g/m\3\......  34 [mu]g/m\3\......  -1 [mu]g/m\3\
                                      [mu]g/m\3\).                                                                                (2.9%)
Memphis............................  2008 ozone (75 ppb)......  Redesignated.............  70 ppb.............  67 ppb.............  -3 ppb (4.3%)
Sullivan County....................  2008 lead (0.15 [mu]g/     Redesignated.............  0.15 [mu]g/m\3\....  0.01 [mu]g/m\3\....  -0.14 [mu]g/m\3\
                                      m\3\).                                                                                (93.3%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The TDEC relocated the Loudon Pope ozone site (AQS # 47-105-0108) to Loudon Elementary School (formerly Loudon Middle School, AQS # 47-105-0109)
  between the 2016 and 2017 ozone seasons, in accordance with the monitoring network plan. This is the combined DV between sites 47-105-0108 and 47-105-
  0109.

    Regarding the Sullivan County SO2 nonattainment area,
the proposed change would not impact SO2 concentrations in
this area because it is in nonattainment for only one pollutant.
Tennessee's revised rules only have a potential air quality impact in a
nonattainment area with a multiple-unit project that could avoid NNSR
through the use of different baseline periods for different pollutants.
Therefore, in a nonattainment area such as Sullivan County where only
one pollutant is subject to NNSR review, the revised rule has no
impact.
    Additionally, any projects that would not qualify as major
modifications under the revised definitions would still be subject to
the preconstruction review and permitting requirements of Tennessee's
SIP-approved minor NSR regulations at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(1). Under the
SIP, no construction permit shall be issued if approval to construct or
modify the air contaminant source would violate ambient air quality
standards, would cause a violation of any requirement under TAPCR 1200-
3, would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy, or would interfere with attainment or maintenance of NAAQS in
a neighboring state. See TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(1)(e).\11\ Therefore, the
revision should not interfere with attainment or maintenance or any
other requirement of the CAA because any project that would qualify for
the use of different baseline periods would still be subject to the
preconstruction review and permitting requirements of the SIP-approved
minor NSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Tennessee's SIP-approved minor NSR rules require a source
impact analysis with modeling. See TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(1)(f). These
rules also require BACT for minor NSR sources in nonattainment
areas. See TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(5)(b)2.(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the portions of TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01 ``Construction Permits,''
effective April 24, 2013, that specifically revise the definitions of
``baseline actual

emissions'' in Tennessee's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations as
discussed above.\12\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The state effective date of the rule changes to the
definitions of ``baseline actual emissions'' in Tennessee's May 28,
2009, SIP revision is May 10, 2009. However, these changes to
Tennessee's rule are captured and superseded by the version of TAPCR
1200-3-9-.01 that was state effective on April 24, 2013. On July 25,
2013 (78 FR 44889), EPA approved portions of the April 24, 2013
version of TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01 into the SIP and modified the state
effective date at 40 CFR 52.2220(c) accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of Tennessee's May 28,
2009, SIP revision that change the definitions of ``baseline actual
emissions'' in TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01,--``Construction Permits,'' as
discussed above.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
 Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-13142 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15056-15057]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05420]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension: Rule 15c3-4.
    SEC File No. 270-441, OMB Control No. 3235-0497.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (the ``Paperwork

Reduction Act''), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') a request for approval of an extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 15c3-4 (17 CFR 240.15c3-4) (the ``Rule'') under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Exchange Act'')
requires certain broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission
as OTC derivatives dealers, or who compute their net capital charges
under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) (``ANC firms''), to
establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management
controls. The Rule sets forth the basic elements for an OTC derivatives
dealer or an ANC firm to consider and include when establishing,
documenting, and reviewing its internal risk management control system,
which are designed to, among other things, ensure the integrity of an
OTC derivatives dealer's or an ANC firm's risk measurement, monitoring,
and management process, to clarify accountability at the appropriate
organizational level, and to define the permitted scope of the dealer's
activities and level of risk. The Rule also requires that management of
an OTC derivatives dealer or an ANC firm must periodically review, in
accordance with written procedures, the firm's business activities for
consistency with its risk management guidelines.
    The staff estimates that the average amount of time a new OTC
derivatives dealer will spend establishing and documenting its risk
management control system is 2,000 hours and that, on average, a
registered OTC derivatives dealer will spend approximately 200 hours
each year to maintain (e.g., reviewing and updating) its risk
management control system.\1\ Currently, four firms are registered with
the Commission as OTC derivatives dealers. The staff estimates that
approximately four additional entities may become registered as OTC
derivatives dealers within the next three years. Thus, the estimated
annualized burden would be 800 hours for the four OTC derivatives
dealers currently registered with the Commission to maintain their risk
management control systems,\2\ 2,666 hours for the four new OTC
derivatives dealers to establish and document their risk management
control systems,\3\ and 400 hours for the four new OTC derivatives
dealers to maintain their risk management control systems.\4\
Accordingly, the staff estimates the total annualized burden associated
with Rule 15c3-4 for the eight OTC derivatives dealers will be
approximately 3,866 hours annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice does not cover the hour burden associated with
ANC firms, because the hour burden for ANC firms is included in the
Paperwork Reduction Act collection for Rule 15c3-1, which requires
ANC firms to comply with specific provisions of Rule 15c3-4 in
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii), 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(ii), and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(viii)(C).
    \2\ (200 hours x 4 firms) = 800.
    \3\ (2,000 hours x 1.333 firms) = 2,666.
    \4\ (200 hours x 4 firms x / 2) = 400 {the number is divided by
two to show an average, since it is assumed that the four new OTC
derivatives dealers will register in even intervals over the three
years{time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff believes that the cost of complying with Rule 15c3-4 will
be approximately $279 per hour.\5\ This per hour cost is based upon an
annual average hourly salary for a compliance manager who would be
responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Rule 15c3-
4. Accordingly, the total annualized cost for all affected OTC
derivatives dealers is estimated to be $1,078,614.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The $279 per hour salary figure for a compliance manager is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2011, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
    \6\ 3,866 hours x $279 per hour = $1,078,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The records required to be made by OTC derivatives dealers pursuant
to the Rule and the results of the periodic reviews conducted under
paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-4 must be preserved under Rule 17a-4 of the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-4) for a period of not less than three
years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. The
Commission will not generally publish or make available to any person
notice or reports received pursuant to the Rule. The statutory basis
for the Commission's refusal to disclose such information to the public
is the exemption contained in section (b)(4) of the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, which essentially provides that the
requirement of public dissemination does not apply to commercial or
financial information which is privileged or confidential.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that
does not display a valid OMB control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC, 20503, or by sending an email to: (i<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: March 4, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05420 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 67246-67247]
[DOCID:fr13no08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[OMB Control : 2105-0538; Docket Number: OST-95-177]

Agency Information Collection; Request for Comments; Clearance
and Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection; Disclosure of Change-
of-Gauge Services

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for renewal and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
cost burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 9, 2008 [FR Vol. 73, pages 51547--51548]. No
comments were received.

DATES: Written comments on this notice should be received on or before
[December 15, 2008 and submitted to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503 with the associated OMB Approval Number 2105-
0538 and Dockets OST-95-177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleta Best, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Disclosure of Change-of-Gauge Services.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0538.
    Expiration Date: December 31, 2008.
    Type of Review: Renewal and Approval of a previously approved
collection.
     Respondents: All U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, computer
reservations systems (CRSs), and travel agents doing business in the
United States, and the traveling public.
    Number of Respondents: 16,000, excluding air travelers
     Number of Responses: 18,200,000
     Total Annual Burden: 227,288 hours
     Abstract: Change-of-gauge service is scheduled passenger air
transportation for which the operating carrier uses one single flight
number even though passengers do not travel in the same aircraft from
origin to destination but must change planes at an intermediate stop.
In addition to one-flight-to-one-flight change-of-gauge services,
change-of-gauge services can also involve aircraft changes between
multiple flights on one side of the change point and one single flight
on the other side. As with one-for-one change-of-gauge services, the
carrier assigns a single flight number for the passenger's entire
itinerary even though the passenger changes planes, but in addition,
the single flight to or from the exchange point itself has multiple
numbers, one for each segment with which it connects and one for the
local market in which it operates.
    The Department recognizes various public benefits that can flow
from change-of-gauge services, such as a lowered likelihood of missed
connections. However, although change-of-gauge flights can offer
valuable consumer benefits, they can be confusing and misleading unless
consumers are given reasonable and timely notice that they will be
required to change planes during their journey.
    Section 41712 of Title 49 of the U.S. code authorizes the
Department to decide if a U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier or
ticket agent (including travel agents) has engaged in unfair or
deceptive practices. Under this authority, the Department has adopted
various regulations and policies to prevent unfair or deceptive
practices or unfair methods of competition. The Department requires as
a matter of policy that customers be given notice of aircraft changes
for change-of-gauge flights. (See Department Order 89-1-31, page 5.)
The Department proposed to adopt the extant regulations, however,
because it was not convinced that these rules and policies resulted in
effective disclosure all of the time.
     Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of burden of the
proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collection; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, by
the use of electronic means, including the use of automated collection
techniques

or other forms of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

Todd M. Homan,
Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.
 [FR Doc. E8-26962 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: June 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 34734-34736]
[DOCID:fr18jn08-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0152; FRL-8366-9]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number of
interest, as shown in the table in Unit II, by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0152 and the
pesticide petition number of interest. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the docket without change and may
be made available on-line at http://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
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       PP Number                                            Docket ID Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7302                                                                                EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0381
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8G7320                                                                                EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

Amendment to Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 7F7302. Circle One Global, Inc. (Circle One), P.O. Box 28,
Shellman, GA 39886-0028, proposes to amend the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1254 for residues of the
fungicide Aspergillus flavus NRRL 21882 in or on the food commodity
corn. Because this petition is a request to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical
method is required. Contact: Shanaz Bacchus; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amendment to Existing Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 8G7320. Montana Microbial Products, 510 East Kent Ave., Missoula
MT 59801 proposes to amend the temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1269 for residues of the fungicide,
Bacillus mycoides, isolate J, in or on pecans, potatoes, sugar beets,
tomatoes, and peppers. Because this petition is a request to amend an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical
limitations, no analytical method is required. Contact: Susanne
Cerrelli, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 6, 2008.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-13625 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61115-61116]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54411A; File No. SR-NASD-2004-171]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule
2340 Concerning Customer Account Statements

October 6, 2006.

Correction

    FR Doc. E6-15186, beginning on page 54105 in the issue of September
13, 2006,\1\ contained an incorrect footnote. On page 54107, in the 1st
column, footnote 24 provided an incomplete description of an
explanation of an interpretive position in Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 31511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54411 (Sept. 7,
2006), 71 FR 54105 (Sept. 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The corrected citation to Release No. 31511 in footnote 24 reads as
follows:
    ``See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24, 1992), 57
FR 56973 (Dec. 2, 1992) (amending the SEC's net capital rule and
explaining the staff's interpretation that to avoid more stringent
capital requirements under the rule, an introducing firm must ``have in
place a clearing agreement with a registered broker-dealer that states,
for the purposes of SIPA and the Commission's financial responsibility
rules, customers are customers of the clearing, and not the
introducing, firm. Furthermore, the clearing firm must issue account
statements directly to customers. Each statement must contain the name
and telephone number of a

responsible individual at the clearing firm whom a customer can contact
with inquiries regarding the customer's account.'').''
    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17180 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17902-17905]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0915; Project Identifier AD-2020-00661-Q;
Amendment 39-21501; AD 2021-08-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rockwell Collins, Inc., Global
Positioning Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Rockwell Collins), GPS-4000S Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) installed on airplanes. This AD was prompted
by an un-annunciated GPS position error, which could cause a misleading
localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) glidepath, resulting
in controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). This AD requires upgrading
the GPS-4000S. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., 400 Collins Road NE, Cedar Rapids, IA
52498; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: www.rockwellcollins.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0915; 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 final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Rau, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:
(316) 946-4149; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 1d4a747e7574697c305e524e5d7b7c7c337a726b.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Rockwell Collins GPS-
4000S GPS installed on airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 29, 2020 (85 FR 68501). The NPRM was prompted by
the FAA being notified of a software error in GPS P/N 822-2189-100 that
can result in an un-annunciated inaccurate GPS position in the region
within approximately 1,000 miles (+/-20 degrees) of 180 degrees west
longitude. The software improperly applies the wide area augmentation
system ionospheric delay corrections to the GPS signal from satellites
located across the 180th meridian. Due to this anomaly, the position
accuracy may be diminished such that the GPS-4000S P/N 822-2189-100
will not support LPV approaches in the affected region. In the NPRM,
the FAA proposed to require removing P/N 822-2189-100 GPS-4000S GPS
from the airplane and installing P/N 811-2189-101 GPS-4000S GPS. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a misleading glidepath on an affected
LPV approach, resulting in CFIT.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were
the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Bombardier
Aviation (Bombardier), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), Airbus Canada,
and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (Transport Canada). The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Supportive Comment

    ALPA supported the AD without change.

Request Regarding the Unsafe Condition

    Bombardier requested the FAA clarify paragraph (e) because it does
not describe the unsafe condition accurately. Bombardier stated that
the reference to a GPS vertical error is misleading and recommended
rewording it to state that a GPS software anomaly causes an
undetectable and inaccurate horizontal position from the Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS).
    The FAA disagrees. The software error in the GPS-4000 produces both
horizontal and vertical position inaccuracies in the affected region.
The FAA determined the vertical error results in an unsafe condition as
it could cause the airplane to follow a glidepath below the obstacle
clearance surface of the LPV approach.

Request Regarding Replacement of the GPS-4000S

    Delta requested the FAA change the proposed requirement in
paragraph (g)(1) to replace GPS-4000S P/N 822-2189-100 so that the AD
does not prevent installation of a GPS P/N that is unaffected by the
unsafe condition. Delta stated GPS-4000S P/N 822-2189-011 is two-way
interchangeable with P/N 822-2189-100 as a set and is not affected by
the unsafe condition. Delta also stated that Rockwell Collins could
develop new GPS P/Ns that are not subject to the unsafe condition,
which operators could not install without obtaining approval for an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC), based on the proposed
paragraph (g)(1). Delta requested the FAA change paragraph (g)(1) to
require replacing GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 with ``an improved
part number.''
    The FAA agrees. It is not necessary for the AD to require
installing P/N 822-2189-101 because requiring the removal of P/N 822-
2189-100 will resolve the unsafe condition. Operators may replace GPS
P/N 822-2189-100 with any other system approved for installation in
their aircraft, although the FAA expects installation of P/N 822-2189-
101 will be the most common method.
    The FAA has revised the AD to only require removing GPS-4000S GPS
P/N 822-2189-100 from service without requiring replacement with a
specific P/N GPS.

Requests Regarding Installation Prohibition

    Airbus Canada and Transport Canada commented on the FAA's proposal
to prohibit the installation of the GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 as
of the effective date of the AD instead of once P/N 822-2189-101 has
been installed. The commenters stated that this may create dispatch
issues for operators depending on the number of available parts.
    The FAA agrees and has changed the prohibition of installation to
take effect 24 months after the effective date of the AD. Operators may
install a GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 to address maintenance/repair
issues prior to complying with the AD. Once an operator has removed
GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 to comply with the AD, the operator must
maintain that configuration and may not change it to install a GPS-
4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 without an approved AMOC.

Request Regarding Applicability

    Delta requested the FAA change the applicability to specify only
those aircraft types with the affected software installed. Delta stated
that as proposed, the AD would require all operators to review records
to verify whether the affected GPS P/N is installed on all of their
airplane fleets, regardless of whether it is type certificated or
supplemental type certificated.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA issues an AD against an appliance when,
as in this case, the unsafe condition exists in the appliance. If
known, the FAA will list the aircraft models that the appliance might
be installed on. However, this would not be an all-inclusive list and
would still require all operators to check their airplanes for the
affected appliance, regardless of whether the model of their airplane
is listed.
    The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.

Requests Regarding Reinstatement of LPV Approaches

    Airbus Canada stated that the NPRM does not mention that Rockwell
Collins removed the LPV approaches from the impacted airports. Airbus
Canada requested that the AD provide credit for this. Transport Canada
asked whether Rockwell Collins and the FAA will return the affected
Alaska LPV procedures to the Navigation database for customers who have
updated their entire fleet with the P/N 822-2189-101 version of the
GPS-4000S.
    The FAA disagrees with this comment. The FAA infers that the
commenters are referencing Rockwell Collins' removal of the affected
LPV approaches from the Rockwell Collins Navigation database beginning
in February 2020. This LPV approach removal was initiated by Rockwell
Collins as a temporary mitigation, but it affects all versions of the
GPS-4000S that use the database, including those (such as the -101
version) that do not have the unsafe condition. Accordingly, the FAA
did not base its determination and the corrective actions of this AD on
the removal of affected LPV approaches.
    The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for the changes described
previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter GPS-
4X00( )-19-3, Revision No. 2, dated March 25, 2020. The service letter
describes the unsafe condition and provides operating limitations for
approaches to airports in the affected region until the software is
upgraded.
    The FAA also reviewed Rockwell Collins Service Bulletin GPS-4X00(
)-34-510, Revision No. 1, dated March 6, 2020. The service bulletin
specifies procedures for upgrading the GPS-4000S software, which
removes P/N 822-2189-100 and installs P/N 822-2189-101.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3,500 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates that 2,000 airplanes have two GPS-4000S
units installed and 1,500 airplanes have one GPS-4000S unit installed.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace GPS-4000S (airplanes with 2     7 work-hours x $85 per         $4,540.00          $5,135     $10,270,000
 units installed).                       hour = $595.
Replace GPS-4000S (airplanes with       3.50 work-hours x $85              2,270        2,567.50       3,851,250
 single unit installed).                 per hour = $297.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in this cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-08-07 Rockwell Collins, Inc.: Amendment 39-21501; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0915; Project Identifier AD-2020-00661-Q.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rockwell Collins, Inc. GPS-4000S Global
Positioning System (GPS) part number (P/N) 822-2189-100 installed on
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 3400, NAVIGATION SYSTEM.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an un-annunciated GPS vertical error
that could result in a hazardously misleading localizer performance
vertical (LPV) glidepath. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a
misleading GPS position on an LPV approach. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in a misleading GPS position on an LPV
approach resulting in controlled flight into terrain.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    (1) Within 24 months replace each GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100
with a GPS that does not have P/N 822-2189-100.
    (2) As of 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do not
install GPS-4000S GPS P/N 822-2189-100 on any airplane.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita 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 the attention of the
person identified in Related Information.

    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Rau,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport
Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 6b3c020803021f0a462824382b0d0a0a450c041d.
    (2) Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter GPS-4X00( )-19-
3, Revision No. 2, dated March 25, 2020; and Rockwell Collins
Service Bulletin GPS-4X00( )-34-510, Revision No. 1, dated March 6,
2020, contain information related to this AD. For this service
information, you may contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., at 400 Collins
Road NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
www.rockwellcollins.com.

    Issued on March 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07015 Filed 4-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 45283-45284]
[DOCID:fr13au07-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56214; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-92]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Establish Transaction Fees for Credit Default Options

August 7, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 27, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as
one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by
CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to establish fees
for transactions in certain Credit Default Options (``CDOs''). The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's principal office, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently received approval to list and trade certain
CDOs, which are binary call options based on credit events in one or
more debt securities of an issuer or guarantor.\5\ The purpose of this
rule change is to establish transaction fees for these CDOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55871 (June 6,
2007), 72 FR 32372 (June 12, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transactions fee shall be $0.20 per contract for Market-Makers,
Designated Primary Market-Makers, and Remote Market-Makers; $0.20 per
contract for member firm proprietary transactions; $0.25 per contract
for manually executed broker-dealer transactions; $0.45 per contract
for electronically executed broker-dealer transactions (i.e., broker-
dealer orders that are automatically executed on the CBOE Hybrid
Trading System); \6\ and $0.85 per contract for public customer
transactions. In addition, the Exchange's Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale \7\ shall apply to transaction fees in CDOs, but the Exchange's
Marketing Fee \8\ shall not apply. The Exchange believes the rule
change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to
the marketplace that are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Broker-dealer manual and electronic transaction fees will
apply to broker-dealer orders (orders with ``B'' origin code), non-
member market-maker orders (orders with ``N'' origin code), and
orders from specialists in the underlying security (orders with
``Y'' origin code).
    \7\ See Footnote 10 of the Fees Schedule.
    \8\ See Footnote 6 of the Fees chedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-92 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-92. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-92 and should be
submitted on or before September 4, 2007.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15756 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 66745]
[DOCID:fr29oc10-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2655-045 and 8519-009]

Eagle and Phenix Hydro Company, Inc. and UPtown Columbus, Inc.;
Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

October 21, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Surrender of License and Surrender of
Exemption, respectively.
    b. Project Nos.: 2655-045 and 8519-009, respectively.
    c. Date Filed: August 23, 2010.
    d. Applicants: Eagle and Phenix Hydro Company, Inc. and UPtown
Columbus Inc., respectively.
    e. Name of Projects: Eagle and Phenix Mills and City Mills
Hydroelectric Projects.
    f. Location: Lower Chattahoochee River Basin on the main stem of
the Chattahoochee River in the City of Columbus, Muscogee County,
Georgia, and Phenix City, Russell County, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Donald H. Clarke, Esq., Law Office of
GKRSE, 1500 K Street, NW., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 408-
5400.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Jeremy Jessup,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project numbers (P-2655-045 and P-8519-009) on
any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
license and exemption for the Eagle and Phenix Mills (P-2655) and City
Mills (P-8519) Hydroelectric Projects, respectively. The applicant
states that the surrenders are necessary for the initiation of the
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration of the Chattahoochee River. The applicant
also states that the ecosystem restoration project would involve the
partial removal of the Eagle and Phenix Mills and City Mills Dams.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27400 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P