[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33024-33027]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14616]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Chapter II

[Release Nos. 33-10660; 34-86302; 39-2527; IA-5284; IC-33543; File No.
S7-10-19]

List of Rules To Be Reviewed Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: List of rules scheduled for review.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing a list of
rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The list is published to provide the public with
notice that these rules are scheduled for review by the agency and to
invite public comment on whether the rules should be continued without
change, or should be amended or rescinded to minimize any significant
economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of small
entities.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-10-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. S7-10-19. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml). Comments also
are available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Bham, Office of the General
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''),
codified at 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to review its rules
that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of
small entities within ten years of the publication of such rules as
final rules. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The purpose of the review is ``to
determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or
should be amended or rescinded . . . to minimize any significant
economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The RFA sets forth specific considerations
that must be addressed in the review of each rule:
     The continued need for the rule;
     The nature of complaints or comments received concerning
the rule from the public;
     The complexity of the rule;
     The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or
conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with
state and local governmental rules; and
     The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(c).
    The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy,
reviews all final rules that it published for notice and comment to
assess not only their continued compliance with the RFA, but also to
assess generally their continued utility. When the Commission
implemented the RFA in 1981, it stated that it ``intend[ed] to conduct
a broader review [than that required by the RFA], with a view to
identifying those rules in need of modification or even rescission.''
Securities Act Release No. 6302 (Mar. 20, 1981), 46 FR 19251 (Mar. 30,
1981). The list below is therefore broader than that required by the
RFA, and may include rules that do not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (but excludes such
rules that are minor amendments to previously adopted rules or rules
that are ministerial, procedural, or technical in nature). Where the
Commission has previously made a determination of a rule's impact on
small businesses, the determination is noted on the list.
    The Commission particularly solicits public comment on whether the
rules

listed below affect small businesses in new or different ways than when
they were first adopted. The rules and forms listed below are scheduled
for review by staff of the Commission.
    Title: Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market
Access.
    Citation: 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b), 78k-1, 78o, 78q(a) and (b), and
78w(a).
    Description: The Commission adopted a new rule under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to require broker-dealers with
market access to establish, document, and maintain a system of risk
management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to
manage financial, regulatory, and other risks of this business
activity. These risk management controls and supervisory procedures are
required to be under the direct and exclusive control of the broker-
dealer subject to the obligations (subject to certain limited
exceptions). In addition, these risk management controls and
supervisory procedures must be reviewed for effectiveness on at least
an annual basis, and the broker-dealer's Chief Executive Officer (or
equivalent officer) must certify, on an annual basis, that the broker-
dealer's controls and procedures comply with the requirements of the
rule.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. 34-63241 (November 3, 2010). In
the adopting release, the Commission considered comments received on
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the proposing
release, Release No. 34-61379 (January 19, 2010).
* * * * *
    Title: Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations.
    Citation: 17 CFR 200.82a, 17 CFR 232.13, 17 CFR 240.13a-11, 17 CFR
240.13d-1, 17 CFR 240.13d-102, 17 CFR 240.14a-2, 17 CFR 240.14a-4, 17
CFR 240.14a-5, 17 CFR 240.14a-6, 17 CFR 240.14a-8, 17 CFR 240.14a-9, 17
CFR 240.14a-11, 17 CFR 240.14a-12, 17 CFR 240.14a-18, 17 CFR 240.14a-
101, 17 CFR 240.14n-1 through 14n-3, 17 CFR 240.14n-101, 17 CFR
240.15d-11, and 17 CFR 249.308.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w(a), 78mm, 80a-10,
80a-20(a), and 80a-37, and sections 971(a) and (b) of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
    Description: The Commission adopted changes to the federal proxy
rules to facilitate the effective exercise of shareholders' traditional
state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company boards of
directors. The rules require that specified disclosures be made
concerning nominating shareholders or groups and their nominees. In
addition, the rules provide that companies must include in their proxy
materials, under certain circumstances, shareholder proposals that seek
to establish a procedure in the company's governing documents for the
inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company's
proxy materials. The Commission also adopted related changes to certain
of its other rules and regulations, including the existing solicitation
exemptions from its proxy rules and the beneficial ownership reporting
requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR.240.14a-11 (``Rule 14a-11'') was also adopted in this
release. It would have required, under certain circumstances, a
company's proxy materials to provide shareholders with information
about, and the ability to vote for, a shareholder's, or group of
shareholders', nominees for director. On July 22, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order
vacating Rule 14a-11 and on September 14, 2011, the Court issued its
mandate. The Court's order did not affect the amendment to Rule 14a-
8, which was not challenged in the litigation, or the related rules
and amendments adopted concurrently with Rule 14a-11 and the
amendment to Rule 14a-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. 33-9136 (Aug. 25, 2010). The
Commission solicited comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis included in the proposing release, Release No. 33-9046 (June
10, 2009), but received no comments on that analysis. However, the
adopting release considered other comments received that addressed
aspects of the proposed rule that could potentially affect small
entities.
* * * * *
    Title: Amendments to Form ADV.
    Citation: 17 CFR 275.203-1, 17 CFR 275.204-1, 17 CFR 275.204-2, 17
CFR 275.204-3, and 17 CFR 279.1.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c)(1), 80b-4, 80b-6(4), 80b-11(a),
77s(a), 78w(a), 78bb(e)(2), 77sss(a), and 78a-37(a).
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to Part 2 of Form
ADV, and related rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Investment Advisers Act''), to require investment advisers
registered with the Commission to provide new and prospective clients
with a brochure and brochure supplements written in plain English.
These amendments were designed to provide new and prospective advisory
clients with clearly written, meaningful, current disclosure of the
business practices, conflicts of interest, and background of the
investment adviser and its advisory personnel. Advisers must file their
brochures with the Commission electronically and the brochures are made
available to the public through the Commission's website. The
Commission also withdrew the Advisers Act rule requiring advisers to
disclose certain disciplinary and financial information.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. IA-3060 (July 28, 2010). The
Commission solicited comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis included in the proposing release, Release No. IA-2711 (Mar.
3, 2008), but received no comments on that analysis. However, the
adopting release considered other comments received that addressed
aspects of the proposed rule that could potentially affect small
entities.
* * * * *
    Title: Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers.
    Citation: 17 CFR 275.204-2, 17 CFR 275.206(4)-3, and 17 CFR
275.206(4)-5.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b-4, 80b-6(4), and 80b-11(a).
    Description: The Commission adopted a new rule under the Investment
Advisers Act that prohibits an investment adviser from providing
advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years
after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees make a
contribution to certain elected officials or candidates. The rule also
prohibits an adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or
indirectly, payment to any third party for a solicitation of advisory
business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless
such third parties are registered broker-dealers or registered
investment advisers, in each case themselves subject to pay to play
restrictions. Additionally, the rule prevents an adviser from
soliciting from others, or coordinating, contributions to certain
elected officials or candidates or payments to political parties where
the adviser is providing or seeking government business. The amendments
require a registered adviser to maintain certain records of the
political contributions made by the adviser or certain of its
executives or employees. The rule and rule amendments address ``pay to
play'' practices by investment advisers.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was

prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. IA-3043 (July 1, 2010). In the
adopting release, the Commission considered comments received on the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the proposing
release, Release No. IA-2910 (Aug. 3, 2009).
* * * * *
    Title: Amendment to Municipal Securities Disclosure.
    Citation: 17 CFR 240.15c2-12.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b), 78j, 78o(c), 78o-4, and
78w(a)(1).
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to Rule 15c2-12
under the Exchange Act relating to municipal securities disclosure. The
amendments revised certain requirements regarding the information that
the broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer acting as an
underwriter in a primary offering of municipal securities must
reasonably determine that an issuer of municipal securities or an
obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract for
the benefit of holders of the issuer's municipal securities, to provide
to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB''). Specifically,
the amendments require a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer
to reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has agreed
to provide notice of specified events in a timely manner not in excess
of ten business days after the event's occurrence; amend the list of
events for which is notice is to be provided; and modify the events
that are subject to a materiality determination before triggering a
requirement to provide notice to the MSRB. In addition, the amendments
revised an exemption from the Rule for certain offerings of municipal
securities with put features. The release also provides interpretive
guidance intended to assist municipal securities brokers, dealers, and
municipal securities dealers in meeting their obligations under the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. 34-62184A (May 27, 2010). In the
adopting release, the Commission considered comments received on the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the proposing
release, Release No. 34-60332 (July 24, 2009).
* * * * *
    Title: Amendments to Regulation SHO.
    Citation: 17 CFR 242.200(g) and 17 CFR 242.201.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c(b), 78(f), 78i(h), 78j, 78k-1, 78o,
78o-3, 78q, 78s, 78w(a), and 78mm.
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to Regulation SHO
under the Exchange Act, in particular a short sale-related circuit
breaker that, if triggered, imposes a restriction on the prices at
which securities may be sold short (``short sale price test'' or
``short sale price test restriction''). Specifically, the Rule requires
that a trading center establish, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display
of a short sale order of a covered security at a price that is less
than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that
covered security decreases by 10% or more from the covered security's
closing price as determined by the listing market for the covered
security as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day. In
addition, the Rule requires that the trading center establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to impose this short sale price test restriction for the
remainder of the day and the following day when a national best bid for
the covered security is calculated and disseminated on a current and
continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effective national
market system plan. In addition, the Commission amended Regulation SHO
to provide that a broker-dealer may mark certain qualifying sell orders
``short exempt.'' In particular, if the broker-dealer chooses to rely
on its own determination that it is submitting the short sale order to
the trading center at a price that is above the current national best
bid at the time of submission or to rely on an exception specified in
the Rule, it must mark the order as ``short exempt.'' This ``short
exempt'' marking requirement aids surveillance by self-regulatory
organizations and the Commission for compliance with the provisions of
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. 34-61595 (Feb. 26, 2010). In the
adopting release, the Commission considered comments received on the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the proposing
release, Release No. 34-59748 (April 10, 2009).
* * * * *
    Title: Money Market Fund Reform.
    Citation: 17 CFR 270.2a-7, 17 CFR 270.17a-9, 17 CFR 270.22e-3, 17
CFR 270.30b1-6T, 17 CFR 270.30b1-7, and 17 CFR 274.201.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-8(b), 80a-22(c), 80a-22(e), 80a-
29(b), 80a-30(a), and 80a-37(a).
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to certain rules
that govern money market funds under the Investment Company Act of
1940. The amendments tightened the risk-limiting conditions of rule 2a-
7 by, among other things, requiring funds to maintain a portion of
their portfolios in instruments that can be readily converted to cash,
reducing the maximum weighted average maturity of portfolio holdings,
and improving the quality of portfolio securities; requiring money
market funds to report their portfolio holdings monthly to the
Commission; and permitting a money market fund that has ``broken the
buck'' (i.e., re-priced its securities below $1.00 per share), or is at
imminent risk of breaking the buck, to suspend redemptions to allow for
the orderly liquidation of fund assets. The amendments were designed to
make money market funds more resilient to certain short-term market
risks, and to provide greater protections for investors in a money
market fund that is unable to maintain a stable net asset value per
share.
    Prior RFA Analysis: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Commission certified that the rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This certification was incorporated into the proposing
release, Release No. IC-28807 (June 30, 2009). As stated in the
adopting release, Release No. IC-29132 (Feb. 23, 2010), the Commission
received no comments concerning the impact on small entities or the
Regulatory Flexibility Act certification.
* * * * *
    Title: Amendments to Rules Requiring Internet Availability of Proxy
Materials.
    Citation: 17 CFR 240.14a-16 and 17 CFR 230.498.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78m, 78n, 78o,
78w(a), 80a-8, 80a-20(a), 80a-24(a), 80a-29, and 80a-37.
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to rules under the
Exchange Act and the Securities Act of 1933 to clarify and provide
additional flexibility regarding the format of the Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials that is sent to shareholders and to
permit issuers and other soliciting persons to better communicate

with shareholders by including explanatory materials regarding the
reasons for the use of the notice and access proxy rules and the
process of receiving and reviewing proxy materials and voting pursuant
to the notice and access proxy rules. The amendments also revised the
timeframe for delivering a notice to shareholders when a soliciting
person other than the issuer relies on the notice and access proxy
rules and permit mutual funds to accompany the Notice with a summary
prospectus.
    Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 in conjunction with the
Commission's adoption of Release No. 33-9108 (Feb. 22, 2010). The
Commission solicited comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis included in the proposing release, Release No. 33-9073 (Oct.
14, 2009), but, as stated in the adopting release, received no comments
on that analysis.
* * * * *
    Title: Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation of TARP
Recipients.
    Citation: 17 CFR 240.14a-6, 17 CFR 240.14a-20, and 17 CFR 240.14a-
101.
    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5221(e), and 15 U.S.C. 78n(a) and 78w(a).
    Description: The Commission adopted amendments to the proxy rules
under the Exchange Act to set forth certain requirements for U.S.
registrants subject to Section 111(e) of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (``EESA''). Section 111(e) of EESA requires
companies that have received financial assistance under the Troubled
Asset Relief Program (``TARP'') to permit a separate shareholder
advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives, as disclosed
pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Commission, during
the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance
provided under the TARP remains outstanding. The amendments were
intended to help implement this requirement by specifying and
clarifying it in the context of the federal proxy rules.
    Prior RFA Analysis: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Commission certified that the proposed amendment
to the federal proxy rules would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This certification was
incorporated into the proposing release, Release No. 34-60218 (July 1,
2009). As stated in the adopting release, Release No. 34-61335 (January
12, 2010), the Commission received no comments concerning the impact on
small entities or the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 3, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14616 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 4393]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Air
Tour Limitations in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules
Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on November 22, 2011, vol. 76, no. 225, page 72239-72240. The
FAA uses the information gathered from Grand Canyon National Park air
tour operators to monitor their compliance with the Federal
regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0653.
    Title: Commercial Air Tour Limitations in the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Each operator seeking to obtain or in possession of an
air carrier operating certificate must comply with the requirements of
14 CFR part 135 or part 121, as appropriate. Each of these operators
conducting air tours in the Grand Canyon National Park must
additionally comply with the collection requirements for that airspace.
The FAA will use the information it collects and reviews to monitor
compliance with the regulations and, if necessary, take enforcement
action against violators of the regulations.
    Respondents: Approximately 13 air operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 44 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 38 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2012.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-1841 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20212-20213]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14660-000]

Cascade Water Alliance: Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 4, 2015, the Cascade Water Alliance filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
White River-Lake Tapps Reservoir Ancillary Hydroelectric Project (White
River Project or project) to be located on the White River, in Pierce
County, Washington. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or

otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following existing
facilities from a previously licensed project: (1) A 352-foot-long, 4-
foot-high rock-filled, timber crib barrier structure with 7-foot-high
flashboards; (2) headworks consisting of two slide gates; (3) a 7.75-
mile-long flowline from the headworks to Lake Tapps which consists of a
concrete flume, five settling basins, a concrete canal, an unlined
earthen canal, and two concrete pipes; (4) a fish recovery pond and a
fish screen facility along the flowline; (5) a valve house with a new 5
megawatts (MW) turbine/generating unit; (6) a new transmission line
from the valve house to a new substation near the valve house; (7) Lake
Tapps with a surface area of 2,740 acres and storage capacity of 46,700
acre-feet at elevation 542.5 feet above mean sea level; (8) an intake
structure on Lake Tapps; (9) a 12-foot-diamter, 2,842-foot-long
concrete lined tunnel; (10) a concrete and steel forebay; (11) four
riveted steel penstocks with varying diameters up to 8 feet and lengths
up to 1,619 feet; (12) a 225-foot-long, 85-foot-wide, 55-foot-high
concrete-framed powerhouse containing an existing 27 MW Francis
generating unit and a new 5 MW unit with a total installed capacity of
32 MW; (13) a concrete and timber tailbay; (14) a 3,250-foot-long open
channel tailrace; (15) a new 4,181-foot-long, 115-kilovolt transmission
line connecting to a nearby substation; and (16) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 50
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Chuck Clark, Chief Executive Officer, Cascade
Water Alliance, 520 112th Avenue NE., Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington
98004; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Matkowski; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14660-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14660) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

     Dated: April 9, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08649 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64846-64849]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25880]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73439; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the CBOE Trade Match System

October 27, 2014.
    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 October 24, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule related to its existing
CBOE Trade Match System functionality. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of
the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new Rule 6.67 related to its
existing CBOE Trade Match System (``CTM'') functionality. CTM is a
systems user interface provided by the Exchange in which authorized
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') may receive copies of trade records
and add and/or update their trade records. Although references to CTM
exist within Regulatory and Information Circulars, as well as technical
specifications, the functionality is not currently described in
Exchange rules. The Exchange believes it would be beneficial to address
and provide further detail in its rules regarding the CTM functionality
and permitted uses.
    Exchange rules currently contemplate post trade modifications.\3\
Such modifications may be effected via the CTM system. A rule
explicitly detailing the modification process and defining what
permitted modifications are allowed however does not currently exist in
the Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes it would be useful to
explicitly reference within the rule text the term ``CTM'' and codify
what post trade modifications via CTM are permitted to reduce confusion
and add additional transparency to the rules regarding CBOE's systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.61 which provides that a Trading
Permit Holder ``shall be obligated to reconcile all unmatched trades
. . . and to report all reconciliations and corrections to the
Exchange or the Clearing Trading Permit Holder responsible for
submission to the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to explicitly reference and describe
``CTM.'' Specifically, CTM is a system in which authorized TPHs may
enter and report transactions that have been effected on the Exchange
in accordance with Exchange rules (e.g., Cabinet Trades \4\ or other
trades that have been transacted on the Exchange in accordance with
Exchange rules, but were not processed through the Hybrid System \5\)
or to correct bona fide errors (e.g., a situation in which a
transaction was reported using the wrong strike). Documentation
requirements related to changes made through the use of CTM will be
announced via a Regulatory Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 6.54.
    \5\ For example, a TPH may not have been able to enter its side
of a transaction due to a system issue with the trade match record
entry process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, CBOE Rule 6.51 requires that for all
transactions made on the Exchange, TPHs must file with the Exchange
certain trade information \6\ in order to allow the Exchange to
properly match and clear trades. This information is used to provide
the comparison of the two sides (i.e., buy and sell) of a transaction.
When the two sides match, the trade is successfully compared and will
move on to the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for clearance.
For trades that do not match (i.e., trade information from each side do
not match) TPHs and their respective representatives must make
reasonable efforts to resolve unmatched trades on trade day.\7\ The
Exchange notes that unmatched trades may be a result of software
problems or systemic problems that cause incorrect information to be
filed or a result of other errors such as ``key punch'' errors which
result from manual data entry (i.e., trade information outside the
written order instructions may have been mistakenly keyed in during
user input). The Exchange notes that CTM may be used by TPHs to change
certain fields on a trade record for which it has authority to correct,
in order to update a trade record or correct an unmatched field to
resolve an out-trade. The Exchange proposes to codify what post trade
modifications via CTM are permitted and further specify which changes
will require notification to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.51(d).
    \7\ See CBOE Rule 6.61. See also, CBOE Rule 6.60. On each
business day the Exchange shall match the trade information
submitted by TPHs on that day and issue Unmatched Trade Reports to
each Clearing Trading Permit Holder, (``CTPH'') which contains a
list of such CTPH's trades for that day which the Exchange did not
receive matching trade data from another CTPH (called ``unmatched
trades''). Upon receipt of an Unmatched Trade Report, a TPH must
reconcile all unmatched trades and report all reconciliations and
corrections to the Exchange or the CTPH responsible for submission
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first seeks to specify which fields may be changed by
TPHs through the use of CTM without notice to the Exchange. Those
fields are: (1) Executing Firm and Contra Firm; (2) Executing Broker
and Contra Broker; (3) CMTA; \8\ (4) Market-Maker Account and Sub
Account; (5) Customer ID; (6) Position Effect (open/close); (7)
Optional Data and/or (8) Origin Code (provided the change is not from a
customer origin code to any other origin code). The Exchange notes that
the information contained in these fields does not affect the terms of
a contract or the Consolidated Tape. Rather, the Exchange views these
changes to be non-critical backoffice changes and as such, the Exchange
does not believe it needs notice from the TPH making the change. The
Exchange also notes that such changes would be captured in the
Exchange's audit trail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under a Clearing Member Trade Agreement (``CMTA''), an
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') clearing member (``carrying
clearing member'') authorizes another clearing member (``executing
clearing member'') to give up the name of the carrying clearing
member with respect to any trade executed on a specific exchange
(i.e., the re-assignment of a trade to a different Clearing firm
occurs post-trade at the OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to specify which fields may be changed
by TPHs through the use of CTM that require TPHs to give notice to the
Exchange in a form and manner determined by the Exchange. Specifically,
those fields are: (1) Series; (2) Quantity; (3) Buy or Sell; (4)
Premium Price and/or (5) Origin Code (if changing origin code from
customer (C) to any other origin code). The Exchange notes that these
fields, with the exception of origin code, do change the terms of the
contract and additionally affect the Consolidated Tape. As such, the
Exchange proposes to require notice and further documentation as to why
such a change is being made in order to monitor such changes, as well
as take the necessary steps to ensure that any such changes are
properly reflected in the Consolidated Tape. As to changes from a
Customer (C) origin code to any other origin code, the Exchange notes
that while such change does not affect the Consolidated Tape or terms
of a

contract, such changes may affect other substantive aspects of how a
trade was processed, including whether a trade should have been given
order priority. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that TPHs making
changes to these fields should be required to provide to the Exchange
notice and documentation relating to the change. The Exchange proposes
to require that notification of the change be made as soon as
practicable, but no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the change
has been made. The Exchange notes that it will not be authorizing any
changes prior to the TPH making changes to any of the above-mentioned
fields (i.e., the Exchange will not expressly indicate whether or not a
change identified in a TPH's notice is in conformity with Exchange
rules prior to the change being made). Rather, due to inherent time
constraints, such changes will be reviewed by Exchange personnel after
the fact, and a TPH that is found to have made an improper modification
may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with
the Rules of the Exchange as described more fully below.
    The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01
to provide that any action taken by the Exchange pursuant to proposed
Rule 6.67(b) and (c) does not constitute a determination by the
Exchange that the transaction was effected in conformity with Exchange
Rules.\9\ As noted above, any improper change made through CTM shall be
processed and given effect, but the TPH may be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action in accordance with Exchange rules. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that nothing in proposed Rule 6.67 is intended to
define or limit the ability of the Exchange to sanction or take other
remedial action pursuant to other Exchange rules for rule violations or
other activity for which remedial measures may be proposed. The
Exchange notes that given the inherent time constraints in making
various changes to exchange transactions, the Exchange would not be
able to adequately consider the above-mentioned requirements and make a
determination within the time required as to whether a change was
improper or not. As such the Exchange will not prevent any changes from
being processed and given effect, but will review such changes after
the fact to ensure compliance with Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if the Exchange provides a TPH the ability to
make a change via CTM, such action should not be construed as a
determination by the Exchange that the transaction proposed is in
conformity with Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange views CTM as an important tool that allows TPHs to
receive copies of trade records and add and/or update trade records.
Specifically, as described above, Exchange rules contemplate post trade
modifications and also require that TPHs resolve unmatched trades. The
Exchange believes CTM provides TPHs an effective mechanism to make such
changes and reconcile out-trades due to bona fide errors, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protecting investors and the
public interest. Additionally, CTM provides a mechanism to enter trade
records for trades effected on the Exchange in accordance with Exchange
rules, but that were not processed through the Hybrid System and would
otherwise be processed outside of CBOE's systems.
    The Exchange also believes that clearly defining in the rules
existing system functionality (i.e., CTM) provides additional
transparency in the rules and provides market participants an
additional avenue to easily understand the system and processes CBOE
offers. The Exchange believes additional transparency removes a
potential impediment to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that requiring certain changes made through the CTM system allows the
Exchange to receive from TPHs information in a uniform format, which
aids the Exchange's efforts to monitor and regulate CBOE's markets and
TPHs and helps prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are
designed to not permit unfair discrimination among market participants.
For example all TPHs may request access to CTM. Additionally, all TPHs
will be subject to the same limitations as to the permitted uses of CTM
functionality.

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 believes that
proposed Rule 6.67 will promote competition by making the CTM
functionality more understandable to users and the general public. The
Exchange believes that by better explaining its CTM functionality to
TPHs and codifying the permitted uses of CTM, TPHs will better
understand the Exchange's systems. The Exchange believes that
additional clarity and transparency in the Rules will make it easier
for market participants to compete with one another on equal footing in
the markets and ultimately benefits all investors.

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 written comments on 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:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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) of the Act \13\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days

of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2014-082 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-082. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CBOE-2014-082,
and should be submitted on or before November 21, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-25880 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:35 PM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello  -  Attached are our comments in the "EPA Responses" file that includes a copy of each item from your 3-5-21 email. Also attached are a revised fugitive pushing file and a supporting data file showing the allowable calculations. This latter file is a zip file and needs to be renamed to a ".zip" ending.

Let me know if the industry has any other comments or questions.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< EPA-RESPONSES-03-09-21-COETF_03.05.21_ModelingFileComments.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_03-09-2021.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Supporting_Allowable_Emissions_Files_2.25.21.abc >>

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Glad to answer any questions you have, Donna Lee.

In that regard, the COETF is having a call Wednesday morning on several matters.  We'll target responding to you afterwards on your question on issue no. 1 with a list of emission units that should be changed from industry average values to ICR test values.

In advance of that call, we'd appreciate your questions/comments on the other issues we raised  -  particularly issue nos. 2 and 3 for the source category files.  That will allow us to make good use of our call and respond back to you expeditiously.

Thanks, DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:37 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

In regard to #1, other than Burns Harbor baghouse #2, what are the other facilities/units where there were units that were tested and could be used for untested units at same facility? This is a surprising comment because we provided in the first files we sent our approach to filling in missing data. Looking back in my notes, the discussion was focused heavily on whole facilities that did not test, and not on untested units at (partially) tested facilities. Since there weren't many facilities that tested, Im hoping there aren't too many of these cases because this change would propagate through a lot of files.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 7:18 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Hope you're well.

Thanks again for the compiled modeling files you sent us on March 1.  The consultants who are assisting the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) in the RTR effort, Montrose and AECOM, have started reviewing the populated emissions files.  They have identified several questions/issues that we wanted to call to your attention right away, so EPA does not get too far along in its QA review without correcting them.

Below is a list of questions/issues identified so far (we may have others as we continue our review):

PQBS category source file
 Industry average emissions factors vs. ICR test data at the same facilities  -  The emissions spreadsheet uses industry average emissions factors for all emission units that were not ICR tested, even when the same type of emission unit was tested at the same facility.  For example, for Burns Harbor baghouse #2 (which was tested), the spreadsheet uses the ICR test data-derived emission factors, but for baghouse #1 (which was not tested) the spreadsheet uses industry average emissions factors.  When ICR test data are available for a facility, we believe those data should be used for all similar emission units at the facility because ICR test data best reflect the particular type of coal, the same coking time and other operating practices, etc. and, so, is more representative than industry average emission factors.  We ask EPA to correct the spreadsheet to use the ICR test-derived emissions factors for all similar emission units at ICR tested facilities.

 Allowable emission rates  -  In many instances the allowable emission rates are orders of magnitude higher than the expected values based on maximum production levels.  It is unclear how EPA derived these values and some of the resulting emission rates are wholly implausible.  The allowable emission rate for each emission unit should be derived (as EPA did in the Taconite RTR, for example) by multiplying the actual emission rate of the emission unit by the ratio of the maximum production rate for the facility to the actual production rate for that facility in a representative year.  The COETF discussed this issue with EPA previously and provided the actual and maximum production rates for all COETF member facilities (see Table 1 below).  We ask that EPA use the actual-to-allowable ratios in Table 1 to calculate the allowable emission rates for each facility.

 Fugitive pushing emissions  -  The fugitive pushing emissions for gaseous pollutants are up to orders of magnitude higher than the correct values.  We believe this problem stems from the use of PM speciation factors for gaseous pollutants in the Coke_Fugitive_Emissions spreadsheet.  The PM speciation factor approach we recommended is applicable only to particulate pollutants, such as the HAP metals and semi-volatiles that were tested at the ABC Coke and Burns Harbor baghouse inlets by EPA in 1998.  Fugitive pushing emissions for gaseous pollutants, including the volatile HAPs and acid gases (HCl, HF, and HCN), should be calculated using the appropriate PQBS ICR industry test data-derived emission factor times the annual coke production, adjusted for the capture efficiency.  These emission factors, taken from the most recent (2/15/2021) Whole Industry Test Data Spreadsheet (Tab A-3. Industry Default EFactors), are listed in Table 2 below.

      For example, the HCl pushing emission factor for foundry coke plants is 1.00E-03 lb/ton coke.  For ABC Coke Battery No. 1, which produced 377,606 tons of coke in 2015, the total HCl emission from pushing would be:

      (1.00E-03 lb/ton coke)(377,606 tons coke/year)/(2000 lb/ton) = 0.189 ton/year

      Accounting for the pushing capture efficiency of 95.02%, the fugitive HCl emissions would be:

                  (0.189 tons/year)(1  -  0.9502) = 0.009 ton/year

      The Category Source file lists ABC Coke actual fugitive HCl emissions for Battery No. 1 at 6.68 tons/year, a factor of about 700 higher.  We ask that EPA correct these values using the appropriate ICR test data emission factors.

 Pushing baghouse emissions (ABC Coke)  -  The pushing baghouse emissions factors at ABC Coke are also significantly overstated.  It's unclear how the spreadsheet values were derived, so we ask EPA to provide the calculations, including the emissions factor that was used, so we can respond more fully.

 Production rates (ABC Coke)  -  The spreadsheet applies the coke production rate for Battery 1 to the North tower and the coke production rate for Battery 5-6 to the South tower.  These should be reversed.

Non-category source file
 Allowable emission rates  -  As with the source category file, the allowable emission rates for non-category sources are orders of magnitude higher than the expected values.  We ask that the actual-to-allowable ratios in Table 1 below be used to calculate the allowable emission rates for non-category sources.

 Acute emissions multiplier  -  The spreadsheet uses an annual-to-hourly emissions multiplier of 2.0 for all sources except flares, which has a multiplier of 10.  Why did EPA not use the same 2.0 multiplier?

 Inconsistent source heights  -

          Cells AP4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 for ABC Coke have inconsistent battery heights in comparison to AP3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.  Please revise.

          Cells AP100-102, 104-106, 108-110, 112-114, 116-118 for AKS-Follansbee (Mountain State Carbon) have inconsistent battery heights in comparison to AP104, 107, 111, 115.  Please revise.

            *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *            *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *

We greatly appreciate your efforts addressing these questions/issues and look forward to EPA's responses.  Given the time sensitivity of EPA's QA review, the COETF can provide the corrected emissions files if doing so would be helpful and if EPA indicates that it will use the corrected files.  Please let us know.
Thanks, DCA

                        *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           * *

Table 1:  Ratios of Actual-to-Potential Coal Charge to be Used for Estimating Potential Emissions from Actual Emissions

Table 2:  Pushing Emission Factors to be Used in the Calculation of Fugitive Pushing Emissions for Gaseous Pollutants

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 1:07 PM
To: 'Jones, DonnaLee'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Agreed!  Thanks, Donna Lee.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 12:46 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello David and Katie. Here are the compiled modeling files that I sent to my division for QA. It may take a couple of weeks (or more) for this review. We use an outside contractor to check these files, mostly for proper coding and mathematical inconsistencies.  At that point, if no errors or after errors are corrected, the files go on to the risk modelers who check for consistencies in modeling parameters and locations. At that point, if no errors or after correction of errors, we will post the files to the public NESHAP website while the risk modeling is being done. I will keep you both posted on all steps in the process.

Thanks to you and your staff and collaborators for the help working with us to get the data in best condition possible. It's been a long, sometimes hard journey to this point, so we should all congratulate ourselves!

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21185-21187]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0336; Project Identifier AD-2021-00293-Q;
Amendment 39-21523; AD 2021-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Uninsured United Parachute
Technologies, LLC Parachutes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC (UPT) parachutes.
This AD results from reserve pin covers (RPCs) catching on the
parachute container flaps and preventing the reserve parachute from
deploying. This AD requires modifying the RPC before the next parachute
jump and replacing the RPC at the next reserve parachute packing. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 7, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 7, 2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 7, 2021.

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 UPT service information identified in this final rule, contact
Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, Engineering Department,
1645 Lexington Avenue, Deland, FL 32724; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://uptvector.com/product-service-bulletins/. 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>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0336.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0336; 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 street address for the
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Kovitch, Aerospace Safety
Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA was notified by the Directorate General for Civil Aviation,
which is the civil aviation authority for France, of an unsafe
condition on certain UPT reserve parachute pin covers.
    Subsequent analysis revealed that, between May 2013 and January
2021, the container was manufactured with a redesign that increased the
length of the RPC, causing it to catch and prevent the reserve
parachute from deploying. UPT determined the affected parachutes are
UPT Vector 3 SE containers manufactured between May 1, 2013, and
January 31, 2021, in any of the following sizes: V3SE-360-1, V3SE-360-
2, V3SE-360-3, V3SE-361, V3SE-364, and V3SE-364-1. This condition, if
not corrected, could cause failure of the reserve parachute to deploy
when needed. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC,
INSTRUCT-064, Revision 1, dated February 10, 2021. This service
information specifies procedures for modifying the bottom tuck tab of
the RPC on the parachute container.
    The FAA also reviewed Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC,
INSTRUCT-065, REV 0, dated February 12, 2021. This service information
specifies procedures for replacing the RPC on the parachute container.
    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 ADDRESSES.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information already described.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because failure of the reserve parachute to deploy when needed will
lead to the parachutist freefalling to the surface without being
slowed, resulting in serious injury or death. Accordingly, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary

to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0336 and Project Identifier
AD-2021-00293-Q'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent Samuel
Kovitch, Aerospace Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 86 parachute containers used
in the United States.
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify RPC........................  1 work-hour x $85 per  Not applicable.......             $85          $7,310
                                     hour = $85.
Replace RPC.......................  1 work-hour x $85 per  $28.50...............          113.50           9,761
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, all 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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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:

2021-09-09 Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC: Amendment
39-21523; Docket No. FAA-2021-0336; Project Identifier AD-2021-
00293-Q.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 7, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC
Vector 3 SE parachute containers approved under Technical Standard
Order C23b, part number Vector SE, with a date of manufacture after
April 30, 2013, and before February 1, 2021, in any of the following
sizes: V3SE-360-1, V3SE-360-2, V3SE-360-3, V3SE-361, V3SE-364, and
V3SE-364-1.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: None.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD results from reserve pin covers (RPCs) catching on the
parachute container flaps and preventing the reserve parachute from
deploying. The FAA is issuing this AD to correct the length of RPCs
that were designed and manufactured with too long of a flap. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the
reserve parachute to deploy when needed.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Corrective Actions

    (1) Before the next parachute jump after the effective date of
this AD, modify the bottom tuck tab of the RPC by following the
Procedure in Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, INSTRUCT-
064, Revision 1, dated February 10, 2021. Before the next parachute
jump after the effective date of this AD, you may do the RPC
replacement required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD in lieu of doing
this modification.
    (2) At the next reserve parachute packing after the effective
date of this AD, replace the RPC by following the Procedure in
Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, INSTRUCT-065, Revision
0, dated February 12, 2021.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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

    For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Kovitch,
Aerospace Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404)
474-5605; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, INSTRUCT-064,
Revision 1, dated February 10, 2021.
    (ii) Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, INSTRUCT-065,
Revision 0, dated February 12, 2021.
    (3) For the service information identified in this AD, contact
Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC, Engineering
Department, 1645 Lexington Avenue, Deland, FL 32724; phone: (386)
736-7589; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://uptvector.com/product-service-bulletins/.
    (4) You may view this service information at 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 16, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-08460 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57691-57692]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1213-000.
    Applicants: ABCGrande, LLC v. Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Complaint of ABCGrande, LLC v. Northern Border
Pipeline Company.
    Filed Date: 9/13/22.
    Accession Number: 20220913-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1214-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Capital Cost Surcharge #2
True-Up to be effective 10/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220914-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/22.

    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 p.m. eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: September 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20354 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74844-74845]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance at
Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport, Auburn, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change a portion of the
airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize
the sale and/or conversion of airport property. The proposal consists
of converting 4.1 acres of an 8.5 acre parcel to non-aeronautical use.
    This 8.5 acre residential property was acquired under grant 3-23-
0002-019-2010 for airport development purposes and to ensure compatible
land-use. The portion of the property to be designated as non-
aeronautical use will likely be leased as aviation compatible light
industrial, retail, or mixed use development. The remaining 4.4 acres
will remain aeronautical use and be used for airport development. There
are no impacts to the airport by allowing the change in use of the
parcel in question as it is not needed for aeronautical purposes.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the disposal of the airport property will
be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16,
1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Barry J. Hammer at the
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Mr. Rick Cloutier, Airport Manager, Telephone
207-786-0631 or by contacting Mr. Barry J. Hammer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment to the
``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use
certain airport property for aeronautical purposes.
    Following is the proposed legal description of the parcel to be
designated as non-aeronautical use: A certain lot or parcel of land
located on the westerly side of Hotel Road, in the City of Auburn,
County of Androscoggin, State of Maine, being more particularly bounded
and described as follows: Beginning at a 2'' iron pipe found on the
westerly right-of-way line of Hotel Road at the northeasterly corner of
land N/F of Robert I. & Cynthia L. McLeod as recorded in Deed Book
2694, Page 288, Androscoggin County Registry of Deeds (ACRD); Thence S
59[deg]01'38'' W along the northwesterly line of said McLeod 435.53' to
a 5 rebar with cap stamped ``NCS, INC PLS 1314'' set in the
northeasterly right-of-way line of Constellation Drive. Said rebar
being N 59[deg]01'38'' E, 9.84' from a 2'' iron pipe found; Thence N
26[deg]57'14'' W along the northeasterly right-of-way line of said
Constellation Drive and land N/F of City of Auburn and City of Lewiston
(Airport Property) 200.49' to a 5 rebar with cap stamped
``NCS, INC PLS 1314'' set at the southerly corner of the remaining land
of the City of Auburn and City of Lewiston as recorded in Deed Book
7897, Page 253; Thence N 59[deg]01'38'' E along the southerly line of
the remaining land of said City of Auburn and City of Lewiston 294.76'
to a 5 rebar with cap stamped ``NCS, INC PLS 1314''; Thence N
05[deg]41'32'' W along the easterly line of the remaining land of said
City of Auburn and City of Lewiston 513.83' to a 5 rebar w/cap
stamped ``NCS, INC PLS 1314'' set on a southwesterly line of said
Airport Property; Thence S 72[deg]24'31'' E along the said
southwesterly line of the Airport Property 217.73' to a 5
rebar with cap stamped ``PLS 2305'' found in the westerly
right-of-way line of said Hotel Road; Thence S 05[deg]41'32'' E along
the westerly right-of-way line of said Hotel Road 554.49' to the Point
of Beginning.
    The above described parcel contains 4.13 acres more or less.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on September 30, 2011.
Bryon H. Rakoff,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-30883 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M