MEMORANDUM Date: June 3, 2005 To: Memorandum to E Docket No. OAR 2002 0068 From: Dave Svendsgaard, ITPID/ OAQPS/ EPA Subject: Additional Information in Support of Selecting a Replacement Cost Threshold for the ERP I. Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present a summary of the replacement cost threshold information provided by commenters during Reconsideration in support of a bright line cost threshold for the Equipment Replacement Provision (" ERP"). The background for the ERP Reconsideration is presented in Section II. Section III presents the information provided during Reconsideration for the use of a percent replacement cost threshold, and Section IV presents our conclusion based on this information.

II. Background On October 27, 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated the ERP, a rule for the New Source Review ( NSR) permitting program that prospectively expanded what types of equipment replacements are excluded from major NSR under the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement ( RMRR) exclusion.

On November 14, 2003 State and local governmental groups challenging the final rule asked the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stay the final ERP ( i. e., prevent the rules from taking effect) until the challenges are resolved by the Court. Several environmental groups filed a similar request on November 17, 2003. On December 24, 2003, the Court granted the requests and issued an order to stay the effective date of the ERP.

Also on December 24, 2003, the EPA published a rule amending its Prevention of Significant Determination ( PSD) provisions for State programs that did not have approved State PSD rules. Prevention of Significant Deterioration is a permitting program designed to protect air quality in areas meeting national air quality standards. In each of these States, the EPA previously had made the area subject to the PSD rules in the Federal Implementation Plan ( FIP). The rule simplified the procedure for incorporating changes into the FIP portion of the State plan where the state does not have an approved PSD state implementation plan ( SIP) in place.

On July 1, 2004, the EPA granted Reconsideration of certain aspects of the ERP. ( See 69 FR 40278.) In granting Reconsideration, we requested public comment on three issues. The issues for reconsideration were: ( 1) the basis for determining that the ERP was allowable under 2 the Clean Air Act; ( 2) the basis for selecting the cost threshold ( 20 percent of the replacement cost of the process unit) that was used in the final rule to determine if a replacement was routine; and ( 3) a simplified procedure for incorporating a FIP into State plans to accommodate changes to the NSR rules.

III. Support the Use of A Percent Replacement Cost Threshold Information As a result of our solicitation of comment on the basis for selecting the 20 percent replacement cost threshold that we used in the final ERP, several commenters supported a replacement cost threshold to provide a " bright line" in determining which activities qualify as RMRR under the ERP. This memorandum presents data and other supporting information received from those commenters that supported a replacement cost threshold and provided data supporting their position, what level they supported, and their basis. Most of the support provided was for the EPA's 20 percent replacement cost threshold; a few of the comment letters stated that the commenter prefers a 50 percent threshold, but that the EPA has properly supported the 20 percent threshold; a couple of the letters supported only a 50 percent replacement cost threshold; and one of the comment letters supported the 20 percent threshold but felt that a 5 percent cost replacement threshold would be more legally defensible. Table 1 presents a list of these comment letters by docket item number, commenter, affiliation, and a brief reason for the basis for their position.

IV. Conclusion In assessing information provided by commenters during Reconsideration regarding a cost replacement threshold, we conclude that there is considerable agreement that our prior arguments for selecting a 20 percent cost threshold are justified. In addition, we received additional data and experience during Reconsideration that further supports our decision for adopting the 20 percent replacement cost threshold. We have evaluated the projects described by commenters and, assuming that they would meet all other criteria of the ERP, these projects would not be the types of activities that necessitate applying the multi factor RMRR approach. We note that some commenters that previously supported a 50 percent cost replacement threshold now support the 20 percent cost threshold. Likewise, a commenter who believes that a 5 percent cost replacement threshold is more legally defensible also feels that EPA is justified in selecting a 20 percent cost threshold. We feel that these facts support our decision to retain the 20 percent cost threshold.

Our goal in selecting the cost threshold is not to create a bright line below which any activity is excluded solely based on its cost. Rather, the threshold is intended to operate as a screen for determining when case by case review is appropriate versus when it is appropriate to automatically exclude an activity as RMRR based on satisfaction of the three non cost ERP criteria. We continue to believe that 20 percent is an appropriate threshold for this purpose. The available data indicate that the 20 percent threshold will effectively screen out those more significant projects for which case by case review of RMRR eligibility is prudent. 3 Table 1. Commenters that Provided Information in Support of the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis @ 2519 Bruce Rising Gas Turbine Association Provided data supporting 20 percent replacement cost threshold for their industry.

@ 2522 Donald R. Schregardus Department of Navy ( on behalf of CAA Steering Committee) Supports the 20 percent replacement cost threshold.

Though lower than the 50 percent they proposed, they do not feel it was arbitrarily chosen and they support it.

@ 2539 American Gas Association " Assessment of the Effects of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Rule on the Pulp and Paper Industry," August 25, 2003 ( the Abt Report)

The Abt Report supports the 20 percent replacement cost threshold.

@ 2540 ( also cross referenced @ 2211, @ 1210,

and @ 2519 for justification)/ D Leslie Witherspoon Solar Turbines Incorporated Supports the 20 percent replacement cost threshold.

Believe that lower thresholds would discourage RMRR for a number of their turbines.

Provided that routine overhaul of their products fall in the range of 6 to 14 percent of the replacement cost.

@ 2547 Timothy G. Hunt American Forest and Paper Association Abt Report supports the 20 percent cost Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 4 threshold for their industry.

They summarized portions of the report, adding relevant technical characteristics of their industry to further support the 20 percent cost threshold.

EPA's 20 percent cut off, as applied to Pulp and Paper facilities, fits within a traditional definition of RMRR and will not lead either to emissions increases or to " life extension"

projects.

@ 2522 Basil G. Constantelos Midwest Generation The 20 percent threshold is consistent with the WEPCO case.

EPA has provided more than adequate support for the 20 percent threshold.

@ 2581 William H. Lewis Clean Air Implementation Project Supported adopting the 50 percent cost threshold, however in light of the fact that sources can demonstrate applicability of the RMRR exclusion on a case by case basis if they exceed the threshold, they support the adoption of the 20 percent threshold. Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 5 @ 2584 Class of ` 85Regulatory Response Group ( voluntary ad hoc coalition of approximately 32 electric generating companies from around the country) The EPA clearly has provided an adequate basis for adoption of a 20 percent cost threshold,

however, based on an evaluation of the replacement projects that electric generating units routinely undertake: turbine blades;

section of waterwall tubes; reheaters;

superheaters and economizers, the commenters determined that a cost threshold of 5 percent would allow electric generators to continue to maintain their plants for safe, efficient and reliable operation.

@ 2593 William L. Kovacs Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America EPA's 20 percent cost of replacement threshold is reasonable.

The 20 percent cost threshold is supported by the Administrative record.

@ 2560 August Wallmeyer Virginia Independent Power Producers While still believing that adding a cost factor to the ERP makes the regulation more complex than necessary, if one is included, it should be consistent with the 50 percent threshold set forth in the NSPS.

@ 2561 Fiji C. George El Paso Corporation  Pipeline Group EPA's cost of replacement threshold is inadequate and needs to be revised to 50 percent as initially proposed.

Attempts to lower the 20 percent threshold will severely affect regular RMRR activities at compressor stations. Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 6 @ 2565 Lisa S. Beal Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Interstate Natural Gas Association of America ( INGAA) Supported EPA's position. Challenged petitioner's positions.

Strongly supports the 20 percent ERP replacement cost threshold. Provided new equipment replacement cost data that purportedly demonstrates that this threshold is both reasonable and appropriate. Argued that any threshold that would be lower would provide little or no relief. Cost analysis performed by INGAA and member companies.

Stated that thy believe that the more complete data submitted demonstrates the validity and appropriateness of the 20 percent ERP threshold for the INGT industry.

@ 2567 Quinlan J. Shea III Edison Electric Institute Supports replacement cost percentage approach ( 20 percent). Characterizations and criticisms of the ERP fail to account for addition RMRR exclusion hurdles under the ERP, suggesting that plants would be allowed to rebuild over 5 years.

Asserts this does not make sense as it would require significant downtime making the operation of the plant uneconomical/ would lead to electric reliability challenges. Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 7 @ 2568 Debra J. Jezouit BAKER BOTTS, LLP. Comments of the Class of ` 85 Regulatory Response Group Does not believe 20 percent cost threshold is arbitrary and capricious ( as asserted by the petitioners).

Although EPA did not specifically identify a 20 percent cost threshold, it provided an analysis in the proposed rule as to why a cost threshold of up to 50 percent might be appropriate.

Though they believe 20 percent is legally defensible, they believe a 5 percent threshold is more legally defensible.

Clay Memorandum provides precedent for establishing a level at something less than 15 percent.

@ 2573 Bill Edmonds WEST Associates Previously advocated a 50 percent cost threshold based on the reconstruction provision in the NSPS but concurs with the EPA that these provisions differ from the modification thresholds of NSR.

Based on their review of the data, they believe that, for the most part, RMRR activities will meet the 20 percent threshold and therefore they support the 20 percent threshold. Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 8 @ 2574 Gregory J. Dana Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Asserted that petitioners failed to place the threshold in context of the overall ERP test.

The final rule does not provide that any equipment replacement under the 20 percent cost threshold is exempt from NSR/ PSD. Cites 3 additional test criteria.

Abt Report supports that some typical replacement activity in the automobile manufacturing industry will not be exempt under the 20 percent cost replacement threshold.

@ 2581 William H. Lewis Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, LLP. Comments of Clean Air Implementation Project. EPA's proposal suggested that the NSPS cost threshold for reconstruction might be an appropriate test. EPA explained that it considered the 50 percent RMRR cost threshold and agreed that establishing a bright line cost threshold, which after their review of a number of industries concluded that 20 percent was appropriate. Believe that EPA has authority under the Act to adopt a 20 percent level and support it. Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 9 @ 2582/@ 2583 Angus E. Crane North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ( NAIMA) Believes that the20 percent cost threshold provides a reasonable threshold. A survey conducted of several of their members has confirmed that RMRR activities that occur on a regular basis can range from 3 to 20 percent of the replacement value of the process line.

@ 2584 Scott Davis Pinnacle West Capital Corporation The 20 percent cost threshold is appropriate and consistent with the Act.

A threshold less than 20 percent would create a strong disincentive for facilities to replace equipment necessary to ensure safe, reliable and efficient plant operation.

@ 2586/@ 2587 Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. ( HECO) and it's subsidiaries Justification for the 20 percent cost limit not arbitrary or capricious. The preamble to the final rule set out a reasoned basis for choosing the 20 percent.

EPA is well within it's legal authority.

@ 2614, 2617

2619 David S. Harlow Hunton and Williams. Council for the Equipment Replacement Rule Coalition ( ERRC). EPA did not abuse its discretion in promulgating the 20 percent replacement value threshold provision, which is well supported in the public record.

Case studies do not support the assertion that Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 10 the 20 percent replacement value provision would exempt " all equipment replacement" in the two industries cited by petitioners.

The 20 percent threshold is much more stringent than the 50 percent threshold previously used by EPA for review of replacement projects, and is supportable.

Provides support of EPA's position. Challenges the petitioners position.

@ 2615 Utility Air Regulatory Group ( UARG) EPA's establishment of 20 percent replacement cost as a threshold screening level is not arbitrary and capricious.

The ERP Rule's 20 percent replacement value threshold does not establish a " ceiling" below which " physical activities" will automatically be excluded, as there are other criteria that must be met.

The list of projects included on the list submitted by UARG ( prior to promulgation of the rule), and used by the EPA to support the 20 percent threshold, are those that utilities must undertake frequently at their units in order to keep facilities operational. Provides two reports Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 11 submitted in Court enforcement action against Illinois Power company concerning various types of maintenance, repair, and replacement activities taken in the industry.

Stated petitioner misread 6 case studies supporting the threshold, and that they did not support the petitioners assertion that the 20 percent replacement value provision would exempt " all equipment replacement."

@ 2670 Leslie Sue Ritts The National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project ( NEDA/ CAP) Abt Report.

Reasonable because of other limitations inherent in its applicability.

EPA gave ample notice to the public of its intent to define RMRR on a process unit basis at 50 percent or something else Table 1. Commenters that Support the Use of a Replacement Cost Threshold ( Continued)

Docket Item No./ Attachment Commenter Affiliation Basis 12 @ 2675 Bob Bessette Council of Industrial Boiler Owners EPA properly balanced the costs and benefits of NSR review in the selection of the 20 percent cost threshold.

EPA's regulatory analysis demonstrates that selection of the 20 percent threshold will not significantly impact emission reductions from the NSR program.

EPA's analysis demonstrates that many RMRR projects would be subject to time consuming case by case reviews at a lower threshold than 20 percent.


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55587-55588]
[DOCID:fr25se08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of

information was published on June 19, 2008, vol. 73, no. 119, page
34972-34973. The requested information is included in air carriers'
applications for insurance when insurance is not available from private
sources.

DATES: Please submit comments by October 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER FORMATION CONTACT:  Carla Mauney at Carla.Mauneyfaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Aviation Insurance.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0514.
    Form(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 61 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 2.23 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 616 hours annually.
    Abstract: The requested information is included in air carriers'
applications for insurance when insurance is not available from private
sources.

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 Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-22457 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59679-59681]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23634]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0724; FRL-9400-5]

Antimony Trioxide TSCA Chemical Risk Assessment; Notice of Public
Meetings and Opportunity To Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group (SCG), Inc.,
has identified a panel of scientific experts to conduct a peer review
of EPA's draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) chemical risk
assessment, ``TSCA Workplan Chemical Risk Assessment for Antimony
Trioxide.'' EPA will hold three peer review meetings by web connect and
teleconference. EPA invites the public to register to attend the
meetings as observers and/or speakers providing oral comments during
any or all of the peer review meetings as discussed in this notice. The
public may also provide comment on whether they believe the appearance
of conflict of interest exists for any proposed peer review panel
expert.

DATES: Meetings. The peer review meetings will be held on Wednesday,
October 16, 2013, from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., EDT; Thursday, October
31, 2013, from noon to 5:00 p.m., EDT; and Wednesday, November 14,
2013, from noon to 2:00 p.m., EST.
    Conflict of interest comments. Comments on the appearance of a
conflict of interest for any proposed peer review panel expert must be
submitted on or before October 18, 2013.
    Comments. Written comments must be submitted on or before November
7, 2013, to be sure they are contained in the peer review record and
are available to the peer reviewers.
    Registration for meetings: To participate in any of the public peer
review meetings, you must register no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, on
October 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Meetings. Meetings will be held via web connect and
teleconferencing. See Unit III.C. in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Registration. See Unit III. in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0724, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
William Jefferson Clinton Complex East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0724.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2012-0724. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online 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 email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
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 at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton Complex
West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the
EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to
show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and
sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-
ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Stan Barone, Jr., Risk Assessment Division (7403M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1169; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For peer review meeting logistics or registration contact: Susie
Warner, Scientific Consulting Group (SCG), Inc., 656 Quince Orchard
Rd., Suite 210, Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1409; telephone number: (301)
670-4990, ext. 227; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including those interested in
environmental and human health assessment, the chemical industry,
chemical users, consumer product companies, and members of the public
interested in the assessment of chemical risks. Since others also may
be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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 email. 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. Background

    On January 9, 2013, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register
(78 FR 1856) (FRL-9375-1) on the availability of five draft TSCA
chemical risk assessments for public comment. The Agency also asked for
nominations for external experts to conduct peer reviews of the draft
TSCA risk assessments, including one titled, ``TSCA Workplan Chemical
Risk Assessment for Antimony Trioxide (ATO).'' Antimony trioxide (CASRN
1309-64-4) is one of 83 chemicals identified for review and assessment
in EPA's TSCA Workplan, which was released on March 1, 2012, at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/workplans.html.
    This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not
represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
determination or policy.
    The draft ATO TSCA risk assessment is being peer reviewed
consistent with guidelines for the peer review of influential
scientific information and highly influential scientific assessments.
EPA asked a contractor, SCG, to assemble a panel of experts to evaluate
the draft ATO TSCA risk assessment report for specific uses of ATO. SCG
evaluated 4 candidates that were nominated as peer reviewers by the
February 8, 2013 deadline established in the January 9, 2013 Federal
Register notice and evaluated over 100 additional experts before
submitting the proposed peer review panel members. The proposed peer
review panel was vetted by the contractor for conflict of interest and
the appearance of bias according to Agency peer review guidance as
detailed in the contract. This proposed peer review panel includes:
Anne Fairbrother (chair), Vincent Rudigar Battersby, Jim Deyo, Bruce
Hope, Larry Kapustka, Wayne Landis, David Ostrach, Daniel Schlenk, Erik
Smolders, and Maria Soledad Supelveda.
    The biographies are available in the docket (docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2012-0724). The public may provide comments to the same docket
for the draft ATO TSCA risk assessment on the appearance of a conflict
of interest for any proposed peer review panel member. This comment
period on the peer review panel membership closes on October 18, 2013.
The final list of peer review panel members will be available on the
SCG's Web site at http://www.scgcorp.com.
    The peer review panel is responsible for the review of the
scientific and technical merit of the draft ATO TSCA risk assessment,
which is available through http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/workplans.html. The peer review
panel will not address potential policy implications or risk management
options that may result from the draft ATO TSCA risk assessment.
Members of the public may register to attend any or all three meetings
as observers and may also register to offer oral comments on each day
of the meetings. A registered speaker is encouraged to focus on issues
directly relevant to science-based aspects of the draft ATO TSCA risk
assessment.
    The first peer review meeting on October 16, 2013, will be
dedicated to hearing registered speakers' oral comments on the draft
ATO TSCA risk assessment and reviewing the charge to the peer
reviewers. Each speaker is allowed between 3-5 minutes, depending on
the number of registered speakers. Given time constraints, a maximum of
30 speakers will be allowed to offer comments. If more than 30 speakers
register to provide oral comments, speakers will be selected by SCG in
a manner designed to optimize representation from all organizations,
affiliations, and present a balance of science issues relevant to the
Agency's TSCA risk assessment. Peer review panel members will have
access to written comments and materials and electronic materials
submitted to the docket by November 7, 2013. Registered observers and
speakers will not be allowed to distribute any written comments or
materials or electronic materials directly to the peer review panel
members. To submit written comments, please follow one of the methods
outlined in ADDRESSES. The public comment period closes on October 23,
2013.
    The second peer review panel meeting on October 31, 2013, will be
devoted to deliberations of the draft ATO TSCA risk assessment by the
peer review panel, guided by the charge questions to the peer review
panel.
    The third and final peer review panel meeting on November 14, 2013,
will focus on the peer review panel's discussion of its draft ATO TSCA
risk assessment recommendations to EPA, which will be posted on the
contractor Web site prior to the final peer review meeting. The final
peer review panel report will be prepared by SCG and made available to
the public according to the Agency peer review guidance at http://www.epa.gov/peerreview. EPA will consider SCG's peer review panel
report of the comments and recommendations from the three peer review
meetings, as well as written comments and materials and electronic
materials in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov, as it proceeds
to finalize the ATO TSCA risk assessment.
    If potential risks are indicated in the revised risk assessment
following peer review and public comment, the Agency will take the
necessary risk reduction efforts as warranted. If no risks are
identified in the revised risk assessment following revision in
response to peer

review, then the Agency may conclude its work on the chemical being
assessed.

III. How can I request to participate in these meetings?

A. Registration

    To attend the peer review meetings, you must register for the
meeting no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, on October 13, 2013. To register
for the meeting, go to www.scgcorp.com/ATO2013, complete the online
registration form, and submit the required information. You may also
register through the U.S. Postal Service or by overnight/priority mail
by sending the necessary registration information (see Unit III.B.) to
the SCG Meeting Coordinator, Ms. Susie Warner. The U.S. Postal Service
or overnight/priority mail address is: The Scientific Consulting Group,
Inc., 656 Quince Orchard Rd., Suite 210, Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1409.
For questions or additional information, contact Ms. Warner by:
Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 227; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Registrations sent via U.S. Postal Service
or overnight/priority mail must be received no later than 11:59 p.m.,
EDT, on September 23, 2013. There will be no on-site registration, so
members of the public who do not register by 11:59 p.m., EDT, on
October 13, 2013, using one of the methods described in this unit, may
not receive web access information in time to attend the first peer
review meeting.

B. Required Registration Information

    Members of the public may register to attend any or all three
meetings as observers, or register to speak if planning to offer oral
comments during the scheduled public comment session of a meeting. To
register for the meetings online or by mail, you must provide your full
name, organization or affiliation, and contact information. You must
also indicate which meetings you plan to attend and if you would like
to speak during the scheduled public comment session of a meeting. If
you register to speak, you must also indicate if you have any special
requirements related to your oral comments (e.g., translation).
    If you indicate that you wish to speak, you will be asked to select
one category most closely reflecting the content of your oral comments.
These comment categories related to the charge questions are:
    1. General comments on the risk assessment document.
    2. Comments on the exposure assessment.
    3. Comments on the hazard assessment.
    4. Comments on the risk characterization.
    5. Other issues.
    Should more than 30 speakers register for a single meeting, these
categories will be used to ensure that a balance of substantive science
issues relevant to the assessment is heard. Additional information on
the selection of speakers and speaking times will be sent out by SCG 3
days prior to each peer review meeting to all individuals registered to
speak.
    To accommodate as many registered speakers as possible, registered
speakers may present oral comments only, without visual aids or written
material. Peer review panel members will have access to any written
comments and materials and electronic materials previously submitted to
the docket. Registered observers and speakers will not be allowed to
distribute any written comments and materials or electronic materials
directly to the peer review panel members.

C. Web Meeting Access

    Each peer review meeting will be held via web connect and
teleconferencing. SCG will provide all registered participants with
information on how to participate in advance of the first peer review
meeting.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Antimony trioxide, Chemicals, Peer
review, Risk assessments.

    Dated: September 18, 2013.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2013-23634 Filed 9-24-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25649-25652]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0264]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Patuxent River,
Solomons, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations during the ``Chesapeake Challenge'' power boat races, a
marine event to be held on the waters of the Patuxent River, near
Solomons, MD on September 15 and 16, 2012. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to
temporarily restrict vessel

traffic in a portion of the Patuxent River during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 15, 2012. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0264 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, MD; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may
also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On September 15 and 16, 2012, the Chesapeake Bay Power Boat
Association will sponsor power boat races on the Patuxent River near
Solomons, MD. The event consists of offshore power boats racing in a
counter-clockwise direction on an irregularly-shaped course located
between the Governor Thomas Johnson Memorial (SR-4) Bridge and the U.S.
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. The start and finish lines will
be located near the Solomons Pier. A large spectator fleet is expected
during the event. Due to the need for vessel control during the event,
the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event
area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators, and other
transiting vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations on specified waters of the Patuxent River. The regulations
will be in effect from 10 a.m. on September 15, 2012 through 6 p.m. on
September 16, 2012. The regulated area, approximately 4,000 yards in
length and 1,700 yards in width, includes all waters of the Patuxent
River, within lines connecting the following positions: From latitude
38[deg]19'45'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'06'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]19'24'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'30'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'32'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'14'' W; and from latitude
38[deg]17'38'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'26'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'41'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'59'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'20'' W, located in Solomons,
Maryland. The effect of this proposed rule will be to restrict general
navigation in the regulated area during the event. Spectator vessels
will be allowed to view the event from a designated spectator area
within the regulated area, which will be located within a line
connecting the following positions: latitude 38[deg]19'00'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'22'' W, thence to latitude 38[deg]19'07'' N,
longitude 076[deg]28'12'' W, thence to latitude 38[deg]18'53'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'55''; W, thence to latitude 38[deg]18'30'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'45'' W, thence to latitude 38[deg]18'00'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'11'' W, thence to latitude 38[deg]17'54'' N,
longitude 076[deg]27'20'' W, thence to the point of origin at latitude
38[deg]19'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'22'' W. Spectator vessels
viewing the event outside the

regulated area may not block the navigable channel. Other vessels
intending to transit the Patuxent River will be allowed to safely
transit around the regulated area. These regulations are needed to
control vessel traffic during the event to ensure the safety of
participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is
unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from
transiting a portion of the Patuxent River during the event, the effect
of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration
that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance
notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local
Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts, so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has
been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation
yet provide the level of safety determined to be necessary.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected
portions of the Patuxent River during the event.
    Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion
of the Patuxent River at Solomons, MD during the event, this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule
would be in effect for only a limited period. Before the enforcement
period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
MD. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100
applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the
United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users
and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water
activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat
parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and
sail board racing. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary section, Sec.  100.35T05-0264 to read as
follows:

Sec.  100.35T05-0264  Special Local Regulations for Marine Events;
Patuxent River, Solomons, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All
waters of the Patuxent River, within lines connecting the following
positions: From latitude 38[deg]19'45'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'06'' W,
thence to latitude 38[deg]19'24'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'30'' W,
thence to latitude 38[deg]18'32'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'14'' W; and
from latitude 38[deg]17'38'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'26'' W, thence to
latitude 38[deg]18'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]26'41'' W, thence to
latitude 38[deg]18'59'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'20'' W, located at
Solomons, Maryland. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (3) Participant means all vessels participating in the Chesapeake
Challenge under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the
event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (4) Spectator means all persons and vessels not registered with the
event sponsor as participants or official patrol.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in
the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given.
Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both.
    (2) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or
the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it
is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
    (3) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (4) Only participants and official patrol are allowed to enter the
race course area.
    (5) Spectators are allowed inside the regulated area only if they
remain within the designated spectator area. Spectators will be
permitted to anchor within the designated spectator area. No vessel may
anchor within the regulated area outside the designated spectator area.
Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request
permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is
granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area
outside the race course and spectator areas at a safe speed and without
loitering.
    (6) Designated Spectator Fleet Area. The spectator fleet area is
located within a line connecting the following positions: Latitude
38[deg]19'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'22'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]19'07'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'12'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'53'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'55'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'30'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'45'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]18'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'11'' W, thence to latitude
38[deg]17'54'' N, longitude 076[deg]27'20'' W, thence to the point of
origin at latitude 38[deg]19'00'' N, longitude 076[deg]28'22'' W. All
coordinates reference datum NAD 83.
    (7) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date
and times.
    (d) Enforcement periods: This section will be enforced (1) from 10
a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 15, 2012, and (2) from 10 a.m. until 6
p.m. on September 16, 2012.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2012-10413 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13133]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4684-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4684-DR), dated January 15, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued February 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of January 15, 2023.

    Mobile and Morgan Counties for Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-04280 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


August 30, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Engine fuel maps for "Greenhouse gas Emissions Model" (GEM) simulation tool, Version 3.0

FROM:	Houshun Zhang, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This docket includes all the engine fuel maps used in Phase 2 GEM for the stringency runs.  There are twenty seven engine fuel maps, covering all engine categories and all years from 2018, 2021, 2024 to 2027.  In order to use the maps to run GEM, the user must first convert all of these files into csv format.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11634-11635]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04709]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77252; File No. SR-BX-2016-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Options
Chapter VII, Section 6

February 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 17, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 amend BX Options Chapter VII, Section 6.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

Sec. 6 Market Maker Quotations

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Continuous Quotes. A Market Maker must enter continuous bids
and offers for the options to which it is registered, as follows:
    i. No change.
    ii. Bid/ask Differentials (Quote Spread Parameters). Options on
equities (including Exchange-Traded Fund Shares), and on index options
must be quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and
offer regardless of the price of the bid, including before and during
the opening. However, respecting in-the-money series where the market
for the underlying security is wider than $5, the bid/ask differential
may be as wide as the quotation for the underlying security on the
primary market. The Exchange may establish differences other than the
above for one or more series or classes of options.
    iii. No change.
    (e)-(f) No change.

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 purpose of the proposal is to harmonize BX Options Chapter VII,
Section 6(d)(ii) with similar provisions of the Exchange's affiliated
exchanges regarding bid/ask differentials (also known as quote spread
parameters). Quote spread parameters establish the maximum permissible
width between the bid and the offer in a particular option series.
Quote spreads apply to quotes, not orders, and are thus only applicable
to the BX Options Market Makers who are required to submit two-sided
quotes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chapter I, Section (a)(9) and Chapter VII, Sections 5
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add language to its rule
regarding bid/ask differentials to permit the Exchange to establish
bid/ask differentials other than what is specified in the rule. Both
the NASDAQ Options Market and the

NASDAQ PHLX have this provision.\4\ Some of the circumstances that may
result in wider quote spread parameters include volatility in the
underlying, recent news affecting the underlying and heavy volume in
the underlying or the overlying option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NOM Chapter VII, Section 6 and PHLX Rule
1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a). PHLX recently amended its rules to add the same
language respecting U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76966 (January 22, 2016), 81 FR
4724 (January 27, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by permitting different quote spread parameters to be established by
the Exchange to address specific requests as well as general market
events. This should promote just and equitable principles of trade and
protect investors by having quote spread parameters reflect potential
volatility and activity in the underlying security, and thereby
encourage robust market making that reflects current market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With respect to intra-market
competition, the proposed language will apply to all quoting market
participants equally. With respect to inter-market competition, market
participants who disagree with the quote spread parameters that the
Exchange establishes may choose to trade on another options exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii) [sic].
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-BX-2016-012 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-BX-2016-012. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-BX-2016-012 and
should be submitted on or before March 25, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04709 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8332-8333]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-38]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625; FRL-8280-9]

State Operating Permit Programs; West Virginia; Amendments to the
Definition of ``a Major Source'' and ``Volatile Organic Compound''

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve an amendment to the State of West
Virginia's operating permit program to correct the definition of ``a
major source'' and ``volatile organic compound.'' West Virginia's
revision was submitted in response to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990 that required States to submit to EPA program
revisions in accordance with the Federal Title V regulations. The EPA
granted final approval of West Virginia's operating permit program on
November 23, 2001. West Virginia amended its operating permit program
to address the Federal EPA amendment to the Federal Title V
regulations, which went into effect on November 27, 2001. In the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's
amendment to its operating permit program as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0625 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0625, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0625. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public 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 http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection

(WVDEP), Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, West
Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: February 16, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 07-846 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48684-48686]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 55.4 acres of
airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to
authorize the sale of airport property Rantoul National Aviation
Center-Frank Elliott Field, Rantoul, Illinois. The aforementioned land
is not needed for aeronautical use. The parcels are located east of
Pacesetter Drive and Galaxy Drive on Rantoul National Aviation Center-
Frank Elliott Field. The Village of Rantoul has determined that the
parcels are no longer needed for the direct operations of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Gary Wilson, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and Eric Vences, Rantoul National Aviation Center-
Elliott Field, 6 Aviation Center Drive<PHONE_NUMBER>. Written comments
on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Gary Wilson,
Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Program Manager,
Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
60018, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wilson, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. The
parcels were transferred to the Village of Rantoul in quitclaim deeds
dated July 12, 2007, July 23, 2017, July 9, 2018 and August 17, 2018
under and pursuant to the powers and authority contained in the Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 and 1990, as amended. The transfer
documents included the National Emergency Use Provision (NEUP). The
Village of Rantoul signed a purchase agreement for the parcels which
exceeds their fair market value. The revenue received from the sale of
this land will be used towards the operation and maintenance of the
airport.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale 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 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Rantoul National Aviation Center-
Frank Elliott Field, Rantoul, Illinois from federal land covenants,
subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as
restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B
section 22.16. 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.
FAA has requested the Department of Defense to concur in the release of
the National Emergency Use Provision (NEUP) from the subject parcels.

Parcel A3a

    A tract of land being a part of Section 2, Township 21 North, Range
9 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Champaign County, Illinois,
described as follows: Beginning at a Rantoul Brass Monument found
stamped ``Rantoul Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at intersection of
the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of Galaxy Drive and the
Northeasterly Right-of-Way line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being
Designated Point Number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by
David P. Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated
July 9, 2007 and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the
Recorder's Office of Champaign County, Illinois; thence North 44
Degrees 16 Minutes 24 Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way
Line of said Galaxy Drive, a distance of 756.86 feet to an Iron Pipe
Survey Monument Set; thence South 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds
East, a distance of 756.43 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set;
thence 44 Degrees 10 Minutes 19 Seconds West, a distance of 758.83 feet
to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence North 45 Degrees 33 Minutes
11 Seconds West, a distance of 757.78 feet to the Point of Beginning,
encompassing 13.17 acres, more or less, situated in the Village of
Rantoul, Champaign County, Illinois.

Parcel A3b

    A tract of land being part of Section 11 and a part of Section 2
Township 21 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian,
Champaign County, Illinois, described as follows:
    Commencing at a Rantoul Brass Monument found stamped ``Rantoul
Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at the intersection of the
Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of Galaxy Drive and the Northeasterly
Right-of-Way Line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being designated
Point Number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by David P.
Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated July 9, 2007
and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the Recorder's Office of
Champaign County, Illinois; thence North 44 Degrees 16 Minutes 24
Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Galaxy
Drive,

a distance of 756.86 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence
South 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds East, a distance of 836.43 feet
to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set, at a Point of Beginning; thence
continue South 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds East, a distance of
482.10 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence South 00
Degrees 32 Minutes 38 Seconds East, a distance of 628.97 feet to an
Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence South 44 Degrees 25 Minutes 02
Seconds West, a distance of 407.53 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument
Set; thence North 61 Degrees 03 Minutes 57 Seconds West, a distance of
197.21 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence North 45
Degrees 31 Minutes 42 Seconds West, a distance of 618.98 feet to an
Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set on the Easterly Right of Way Line of Said
pacesetter Drive; thence North 00 Degrees 30 Minutes 33 Seconds West
along the Easterly Right of Way of said Pacesetter Drive, a distance of
161.61 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set; thence North 44
Degrees 10 Minutes 19 Seconds East, a distance of 789.23 feet to the
Point of Beginning, encompassing 16.67 acres, more or less, situated in
the Village of Rantoul, Champaign County, Illinois.

A2c-8

    A tract of land being part of Section 11 and a part of Section 2,
Township 21 North, Range 9 East of the Third Principal Meridian,
Champaign County, Illinois, described as follows:
    Commencing at a Rantoul Brass Monument found stamped ``Rantoul
Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' Found at the intersection of the
Southeasterly Right of Way Line of Galaxy Drive and the Northeasterly
Right-of-Way Line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being designated
Point Number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by David P.
Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated July 9, 2007
and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the Recorder's Office of
Champaign County, Illinois; thence south 45 Degrees 33 Minutes 11
Seconds East along the Northeasterly Right of Way Line of said
Pacesetter Drive, a distance of 807.77 feet to a Brass Monument stamped
``Rantoul Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at a bend point in the
Right-of-Way of said Pacesetter Drive; thence South 00 Degrees 30
Minutes 33 Seconds East along the Easterly Right-of-Way Line of said
Pacesetter Drive, a distance of 235.65 feet to a Brass Monument stamped
``Rantoul Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' Found at a bend point in the
Right-of- Way of said Pacesetter Drive; thence south 44 Degrees 27
Minutes 02 Seconds West along the Southeasterly Right of Way Line of
said Pacesetter Drive, a distance of 57.81 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey
Monument Set at a point of beginning; thence South 45 Degrees 31
Minutes 42 Seconds East, a distance of 596.63 feet to an Iron Pipe
Survey Monument Set; thence South 44 Degrees 35 Minutes 13 Seconds
West, a distance of 643.44 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set;
thence around a circular curve concave to the North, having a radius of
100.00 feet, a chord length of 141.13 feet, a chord bearing South 89
Degrees 28 Minutes 04 Seconds West, for an arc length of 156.66 feet to
an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set on the Northeasterly Right-of-Way Line
of Arends Boulevard; thence North 45 Degrees 39 Minutes 04 Seconds West
along the Northeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Arends Boulevard a
distance of 495.28 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set on the
Southeasterly Right of Way Line of said Pacesetter Drive; thence North
44 Degrees 27 Minutes 02 Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-
Way Line of said Pacesetter Drive a distance of 744.31 feet to the
point of beginning, encompassing 10.12 acres, more or less, situated in
the Village of Rantoul, Champaign County, Illinois.

A1b-4

    A tract of land being a part of Section 2, Township 21 North, Range
9 East of the third Principal Meridian, Champaign County, Illinois,
described as follows:
    Commencing at a Rantoul Brass Monument found stamped ``Rantoul
Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at the intersection of the
Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of Galaxy Drive and the Northeasterly
Right-of-Way Line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being designated
point number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by David P.
Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated July 9, 2007
and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the recorder's office of
Champaign County, Illinois; thence North 44 Degrees 16 Minutes 24
Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Galaxy
Drive, a distance of 836.86 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set at
a point of beginning; thence continue North 44 Degrees 16 Minutes 24
Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Galaxy
Drive, a distance of 469.02 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set;
thence south 45 Degrees 33 Minutes 16 Seconds East, a distance of
280.24 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence North 44
Degrees 16 Minutes 24 Seconds East, a distance of 63.56 feet to an Iron
Pipe Survey Monument set; thence South 45 Degrees 33 Minutes 16 Seconds
East, a distance of 479.91 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set;
thence South 02 Degrees 49 Minutes 35 Seconds West, a distance of
425.87 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence south 44
degrees 35 minutes 26 seconds west, a distance of 105.41 feet to an
iron pipe Survey Monument set; thence around a circular curve concave
to the East, having a radius of 120.00 feet, a chord length of 159.60
feet, a chord bearing South 04 Degrees 01 Minutes 12 Seconds East for
an arc length of 174.60 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set;
thence North 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds West, a distance of
1,160.61 feet to the point of beginning, encompassing 11.34 acres, more
or less, situated in the Village of Rantoul, Champaign County,
Illinois.

A1b-2:1

    A tract of land being part of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range
9 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Champaign County, Illinois,
described as follows:
    Commencing at a Rantoul Brass Monument found stamped ``Rantoul
Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at the intersection of the
Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of Galaxy Drive and the Northeasterly
Right-of-Way Line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being designated
point number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by David P.
Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated July 9, 2007
and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the recorder's office of
Champaign County, Illinois; thence North 44 Degrees 16 Minutes 24
Seconds East along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Galaxy
Drive, a distance of 836 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set;
thence thence South 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds East, a distance
of 1,305.88 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence South 00
Degrees 32 Minutes 38 Seconds East a distance of 695.34 feet to an Iron
Pipe Survey Monument Set; Thence 44 Degrees 25 Minutes 02 Seconds West
a distance of 1,225.29 feet, thence North 45 Degrees 25 Minutes 02
Seconds West, a distance of 80 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set
at a Point of Beginning; Thence continue North 45 Degrees 38 Minutes 48
Seconds West, a distance of 132 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument
Set, thence North 44 Degrees 35 Minutes 13 Seconds East, a distance of
306.46 to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument Set, thence South 45 Degrees

37 Minutes 27 Seconds East, a distance of 131.32 feet to an Iron Pipe
Survey Monument set; thence South 44 Degrees 25 Minutes 02 Seconds
West, a distance of 306.41 feet to the Point of Beginning, encompassing
0.93 acres, more or less, situated in the Village of Rantoul, Champaign
County, Illinois.

A1b-3:1

    A tract of land being part of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range
9 East of the third Principal Meridian, Champaign County, Illinois,
described as follows:
    Commencing at a Rantoul Brass Monument found stamped ``Rantoul
Survey Monument IPLS 2280'' found at the intersection of the
Southeasterly Right-of-way Line of Galaxy Drive and the Northeasterly
Right-of-Way Line of Pacesetter Drive, said corner being Designated
Point Number 288 and shown as such on Plat of Survey by David P.
Phillippe, Illinois Professional Land Surveyor 2591, dated July 9, 2007
and recorded as Document Number 2007R22404 in the recorder's office of
Champaign County, Illinois; thence North 44 Degrees 16 Minutes 24
Seconds east along the Southeasterly Right-of-Way Line of said Galaxy
Drive, a distance of 836.86 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set;
thence South 45 Degrees 42 Minutes 05 Seconds East, a distance of
1,351.83 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence south 00
Degrees 32 Minutes 38 Seconds East, a distance of 695.34 feet to an
Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence South 44 Degrees 25 Minutes 02
Seconds West, a distance of 1,225.29 feet; thence North 45 Degrees 38
Minutes 48 Seconds West, a distance of 80.00 feet to an Iron Pipe
Survey Monument set at a point of beginning; thence continue North 45
Degrees 38 Minutes 48 Seconds West, a distance of 132.22 feet to an
Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence north 44 Degrees 35 Minutes 13
Seconds East, a distance of 306.46 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument
set; thence South 45 Degrees 37 Minutes 27 Seconds East, a distance of
131.32 feet to an Iron Pipe Survey Monument set; thence South 44
Degrees 25 Minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 306.41 feet to the
point of beginning, encompassing 0.93 acres, more or less, situated in
the Village of Rantoul, Champaign County, Illinois.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on September 17, 2018.
Deb Bartell,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-20874 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P