6 16 6.2 Region 2 Nonattainment Areas 6.2.1 EPA 9 Factor Analyses for New Jersey for the Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas Modifications to New Jersey's Recommendations Gloucester New Jersey did not recommend Gloucester County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New Jersey recommendation by designating Gloucester County as nonattainment.

Gloucester County ranks high for emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. Gloucester is also adjacent to a county with a violating monitor. Point sources are also located near the county with the violating monitor.

Camden New Jersey did not recommend Camden County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New Jersey recommendation by designating Camden County as nonattainment.

Camden County ranks high for emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. Camden is also adjacent to a county with a violating monitor. Point sources are also located near the county with the violating monitor.

Burlington New Jersey did not recommend Burlington County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New Jersey recommendation by designating Burlington County as nonattainment.

Burlington County ranks high for emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. Burlington is also adjacent to a county with a violating monitor. Point sources are also located near the county with the violating monitor.

Analysis of the New Jersey portion of the PA NJ MD C/ MSA and adjacent counties The New Jersey portion of this area includes the counties of Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, Cape May, Atlantic, Cumberland, Salem, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean, Hunterdon, and Warren. Violating monitors ( based on 2001 2003 data) are present in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties in Pennsylvania, and in New Castle in Delaware.

Based on EPA's nine factor analysis, EPA is recommending that additional counties should be added to the nonattainment area for the New Jersey portion of the PA NJ MD C/ MSA and adjacent counties. 6 17 EPA Recommendation State Recommendation Gloucester, Camden, and Burlington None The following is a brief summary of the 9 criteria for the New Jersey portion of the PA NJ MD C/ MSA and adjacent counties. Although listed in the tables for comparison purposes, Monmouth and Mercer counties are not specifically discussed in the analysis since they have been recommended for nonattainment by New Jersey.

Factor 1: Emissions in the PA NJ MD C/ MSA and for those that are adjacent to the C/ MSA The following table shows total emissions ( in tons) and emission scores for Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland, and Delaware included in the PA NJ MD C/ MSA and for those that are adjacent to the C/ MSA. ( Data source: 2001 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI)).

County direct PM 2.5 ( tons) SO2 ( tons) NOx ( tons) Carbon PM2.5 ( tons) Crustal PM2.5 ( tons) Emission Score Cumulative Score New Castle, DE 4,558 61,499 34,640 2,276 15,147 18.6 18.6 Philadelphia, PA 3,944 16,681 55,011 2,116 1,200 14.0 32.6 Delaware, PA 3,173 24,882 33,259 1,458 1,225 11.1 43.7 Montgomery, PA 3,910 8,721 21,191 1,905 1,700 8.7 52.4 Chester, PA 3,716 11,391 16,909 1,228 2,226 6.9 59.3 Bucks, PA 3,100 6,870 16,852 1,443 1,444 6.8 66.1 Gloucester, NJ 1,909 9,154 21,849 1,035 697 6.5 72.6 Camden, NJ 2,154 4,120 17,025 1,286 727 5.9 78.5 Burlington, NJ 2,298 2,330 15,113 1,326 836 5.6 84.1 Cape May, NJ 2,157 14,578 7,894 938 1,044 5.5 89.6 Atlantic, NJ 1,404 1,905 8,676 773 563 3.3 92.9 Cumberland, NJ 1,374 1,941 7,054 638 669 2.8 95.7 Salem, NJ 1,243 4,485 5,457 487 653 2.6 98.3 Cecil, MD 950 948 5,502 401 518 1.8 100.1 Northampton, PA 5,646 55,105 24,051 1,212 3,374 13.9 Berks, PA 4,806 17,143 21,834 1,520 2,821 9.1 Lancaster, PA 5,673 10,786 20,901 1,746 3,569 8.8 Mercer, NJ 2,950 16,426 27,098 1,113 1,608 8.4 Monmouth, NJ 3,143 3,028 18,971 1,820 1,226 7.4 Ocean, NJ 3,291 1,500 13,754 1,802 1,404 6.6 Lehigh, PA 1,844 6,027 12,154 624 1,018 3.9 Kent, DE 1,503 5,124 8,512 618 818 3.4 Harford, MD 1,517 1,946 8,662 754 705 3.3 Hunterdon, NJ 1,490 1,158 8,494 628 809 2.8 Warren, NJ 1,204 975 6,358 600 530 2.5 Kent, MD 438 228 1,009 170 259 0.6 Applied to New Jersey, the process identifies Mercer, Monmouth, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, and Ocean Counties as having elevated emissions relative to the remainder of the C/ MSA. 6 18 Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, and Salem Counties in New Jersey have multiple large point sources which are concentrated along the border of Philadelphia, Delaware and New Castle Counties. In contrast, Ocean County does not have any significant point sources.

The bulk of mobile source emissions from Gloucester, Camden, and Burlington counties would be concentrated along the border of eastern Pennsylvania since the population of the New Jersey counties is concentrated along the border of Philadelphia and Delaware counties. In contrast, the population for Ocean County is concentrated in the northeast section of the county.

Factor 2: Air quality County PM 2.5 2001 2003 Design Value ( µ g/ m3) New Castle, DE 16.2 Philadelphia, PA 16.4 Delaware, PA 15.6 Montgomery, PA 14.3 Chester, PA 15.1 Bucks, PA 14.6 Gloucester, NJ 13.8 Camden, NJ 14.6 Burlington, NJ No monitor Cape May, NJ No monitor Atlantic, NJ 11.6 Northampton, PA 14.8 Berks, PA 16.4 Lancaster, PA 17.0 Mercer, NJ 14.0 Monmouth, NJ No monitor Ocean, NJ 11.7 Lehigh, PA 14.6 Kent, DE 13.1 Harford, MD 13.1 Hunterdon, NJ No monitor Kent, DE 13.1 6 19 Cumberland, NJ No monitor Salem, NJ No monitor Cecil, MD No monitor New Jersey does not have any design values above the standard in the area. Gloucester and Camden counties have design values approaching the standard.

The following New Jersey counties are adjacent to counties with violating monitors: Burlington, Camden, Salem and Gloucester.

Factor 3: Population/ Population density County 2002 Population 2002 Population Density ( population per sq mi) New Castle, DE 512,370 1,203 Philadelphia PA 1,492,231 11,054 Delaware, PA 553,435 3,008 Montgomery PA 766,517 1,587 Chester, PA 450,160 595 Bucks, PA 610,440 1,004 Gloucester, NJ 262,049 806 Ocean, NJ 537,065 844 Camden, NJ 511,957 2,306 Burlington, NJ 437,871 544 Cape May, NJ 102, 013 400 Atlantic, NJ 259,423 462 Northampton, PA 273,324 731 Berks, PA 382,108 445 Lancaster, PA 478,561 504 Lehigh, PA 317,533 915 Kent, DE 131,069 222 Harford, MD 227,713 518 Mercer, NJ 359,463 1,591 Monmouth, NJ 629,836 1,334 6 20 Cumberland, NJ 147,768 302 Salem, NJ 64,438 191 Cecil, MD 90,335 260 The analysis for this factor looks at population data from 2002. Population data indicates the likelihood of population based emissions to contribute to monitored violations.

Due to its large concentrated population and relative land size area, the county of Philadelphia dominates the remainder of the C/ MSA.

To a much lesser extent, Camden County is also more urbanized than the majority of the remaining counties in the C/ MSA.

The population of Gloucester, Camden, and Burlington are concentrated along the border of Philadelphia and Delaware counties. In contrast, the population of Ocean County is concentrated in the northeastern most section of the county.

Factor 4: Traffic and commuting patterns County VMT1 ( 1000 miles) # Commuters to Philadelphia, PA # Commuters to Delaware, PA # Commuters to New Castle, DE New Castle, DE 4,957 5,386 8,150 209,742 Philadelphia, PA 10,213 429,667 21,802 1,856 Delaware, PA 3,513 48,151 137,988 9,002 Montgomery, PA 4,677 54,576 11,758 1,201 Chester, PA 3,128 10,568 17,870 12,976 Bucks, PA 3,830 31,892 2,754 493 Gloucester, NJ 2,312 13,778 3,179 1,662 Ocean, NJ 3,641 491 118 45 Camden, NJ 4,332 32,961 3,232 1,286 Burlington, NJ 3,748 17,661 1,771 597 Cape May, NJ 749 716 224 109 Atlantic, NJ 2,236 1,359 314 175 Northampton, PA 2,132 244 66 16 Berks, PA 3,952 702 505 157 Lancaster, PA 4,004 607 615 523 6 21 Lehigh, PA 2,738 578 171 22 Kent, DE 1,633 37 125 6,058 Harford, MD 2,208 88 35 1,033 Monmouth, NJ 5,146 622 66 40 Mercer, NJ 3,869 1,574 244 139 Cumberland, NJ 1,166 618 105 171 Cecil, MD 1,340 254 373 14,059 Salem, NJ 734 615 486 3,258 1 Vehicle Miles Traveled within county in 2002 The analysis of this factor looks at the number of commuters who drive to counties within the metropolitan area with violating monitors, as well as total Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) for each county in thousands of miles.

The largest numbers of commuters are from Pennsylvania and Delaware counties. Camden, Burlington, and Gloucester Counties also have large numbers of people who commute to Philadelphia. All other New Jersey counties are low for the number of commuters. Ocean County has a very low number of commuters to Philadelphia.

After Philadelphia, there does not appear to be a significant difference in VMT between the remainder of the counties in the CMSA.

Factor 5: Expected growth County 2002 Population % growth ( 90 00) Population Growth ( 90 00) New Castle, DE 512,370 13 58,319 Philadelphia, PA 1,492,231  4  68,027 Delaware, PA 553,435 1 3,213 Montgomery, PA 766,517 11 71,986 Chester, PA 450,160 15 57,105 Bucks, PA 610,440 10 56,461 Gloucester, NJ 262,049 11 24,591 Ocean, NJ 537,065 18 77,713 Camden, NJ 511,957 1 6,108 Burlington, NJ 437,871 10 28,328 Cape May, NJ 102,013 8 7,237 6 22 Atlantic, NJ 259,423 13 28,225 Northampton, PA 273,324 8 19,961 Berks, PA 382,108 11 37,115 Lancaster, PA 478,561 11 47,836 Lehigh, PA 317,533 7 20,960 Kent, DE 131,069 14 15,704 Harford, MD 227,713 20 36,458 Monmouth, NJ 629,836 11 62, 177 Mercer, NJ 359,463 8 24,937 Cumberland, NJ 147,768 6 8,385 Salem, NJ 64,438  2  1,009 Cecil, NJ 90,335 20 14,604 Ocean, Gloucester, and Burlington Counties experienced moderate growth in New Jersey.

Factor 6: Meteorology This factor did not play a significant role in the decision making process for New Jersey counties with the exception of Ocean, Cape May, and Atlantic Counties.

County Prevailing Wind Direction %

NW SW SE NE Philadelphia, PA 35 31 15 20 Delaware, PA 35 30 15 20 New Castle, DE 38 28 15 19 The prevailing wind direction to counties with violating monitors is predominantly from the NW and SW.

Ocean, Cape May, and Atlantic Counties had a negligible contribution based upon analysis of pollution roses.

Further analysis of 24 hour back trajectories ( HYSPLIT model) calculated and plotted for twenty two high PM days in Philadelphia indicate that emissions from Ocean County have a very low impact on Philadelphia. The HYSPLIT model was used with 80 KM EDAS data to calculate 24 hour back trajectories ending at an elevation of 500 meters over Philadelphia ending at 07 UTC, 13 UTC, 19 UTC, and 01 UTC ( next day). Back trajectories passed through Ocean County only on four days. Further review of those trajectories indicate the following: 6 23 January 13, 2001 One out of the four trajectories plotted ( i. e. back trajectory ending at 19 WTC) passed through the northwesternmost section of the county. That section of the county has a low population density. The trajectory continued through Camden and Gloucester and looped through heavily populated sections of Philadelphia ( entered the city from the west).

Dec 10, 2002 Light and variable winds were observed which would indicate the impact of local emissions from the Philadelphia area. One out of the four trajectories plotted ( i. e., back trajectory ending at 07 WTC) passed through the center of the county. The trajectory looped through Kent and New Castle and then entered Philadelphia from the west.

Jan 30, 2003 One out of the four trajectories plotted ( i. e., back trajectory ending at 19 WTC) passed through the northwesternmost section of the county. That section of the county has a low population density.

Oct 27, 2000 Two out of the four trajectories plotted ( i. e., back trajectory ending at 07 and 13 WTC) passed through the southernmost section of the county. That section of the county has a low population density. The trajectory ending at 01 WTC on October 28th was from the west.

Factor 7: Geography/ topography The area does not have any geographical or topographical boundaries limiting its airshed in the areas.

Factor 8: Jurisdictional boundaries EPA is striving to achieve consistency with the 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas for purposes of state air quality planning. Although this factor is considered as part of the analysis, this factor is not a dominant factor in the decision making process.

All counties in New Jersey were designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004.

Factor 9: Level of control of emission sources This factor did not play a significant role in the decision making. The level of control of emission is reflected in factor 1.

6.2.2 EPA 9 Factor Analyses for New York for the Designation of Nonattainment Areas for PM2.5 6 24 Modifications to New York's Recommendations Westchester New York did not recommend Westchester County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New York recommendation by designating Westchester County as nonattainment.

Westchester County ranks high for emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. Westchester is also adjacent to a county with a violating monitor. In addition, an analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Westchester County.

Nassau New York did not recommend Nassau County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New York recommendation by designating Nassau County as nonattainment.

Nassau County ranks high for emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. In addition, an analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Nassau County.

Suffolk New York did not recommend Suffolk County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New York recommendation by designating Suffolk County as nonattainment.

Suffolk County ranks high for urban excess emissions, population, traffic, and commuting patterns. In addition, an analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Suffolk County.

Orange New York did not recommend Orange County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New York recommendation by designating Orange County as nonattainment.

Orange County ranks high for emissions. Orange County also has several large point sources. In addition, an analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Orange County.

Rockland New York did not recommend Rockland County as a nonattainment county. EPA is modifying the New York recommendation by designating Rockland County as nonattainment. This county is recommended because it is contiguous to both Orange and Westchester Counties, and an analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Rockland County. 6 25 Analysis of the New York and New Jersey portions of the NY NJ CT PA C/ MSA and adjacent counties The New York portion of this area includes the counties of Suffolk, Nassau, Queens, New York, Orange, Kings, Westchester, Dutchess, Bronx, Rockland, Richmond, Putnam, Ulster, Sullivan, Greene, Columbia, and Delaware. Violating monitors ( based on 2001 2003 data) in New York State are present in New York and the Bronx counties.

The New Jersey portion of the area includes Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Ocean, Mercer, Hudson, Union, Morris, Somerset, Passaic, Hunterdon, Sussex, Warren, and Burlington. A violating monitor ( based on 2001 2003 data) in New Jersey is present in Union County.

A violating monitor ( based on 2001 2003 data) is also present in New Haven, Connecticut.

New York State has recommended that the most effective boundary for the New York portion of this nonattainment area would consist of the five counties comprising New York City which includes New York, the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties.

New Jersey's recommendation includes Hudson, Union, Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Mercer, Morris, Somerset, and Passaic counties.

Based on EPA's nine factor analysis, EPA is recommending that additional counties should be added to the nonattainment area for the New York portion of the NY NJ CT PA C/ MSA and adjacent counties. EPA is not recommending that any additional counties be added to the New Jersey portion of the NY NJ CT PA C/ MSA and adjacent counties.

NY NJ CT PA Area EPA Recommendation State Recommendation New York New York, the Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Nassau, Orange, Westchester, and Rockland. New York, the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties.

New Jersey Hudson, Union, Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Mercer, Morris, Somerset, Passaic counties. Hudson, Union, Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Mercer, Morris, Somerset, Passaic counties.

The following is a brief summary of the 9 criteria for the New York State and New Jersey portions of the NY NJ CT PA C/ MSA including adjacent counties. Counties that are in the C/ MSA are in bold. Burlington, NJ was not evaluated since it was recommended for nonattainment by us based on our 9 factor analysis for the New Jersey portion of the PA NJ MD C/ MSA area.

Factor 1: Emissions for New York and New Jersey Counties included in the NY NJ CTPA and for those that are adjacent to the C/ MSA 6 26 The following table shows total emissions ( in tons) and Emission Scores for New York and New Jersey Counties included in the NY NJ CT PA and for those that are adjacent to the C/ MSA. ( Data source: 2001 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI)).

County direct PM 2.5 ( tons) SO2 ( tons) NOx ( tons) Carbon PM2.5 ( tons) Crustal PM2.5 ( tons) Emission Score Cumulative Score Suffolk, NY 9,834 45,379 42,938 5,894 3,455 10.8 10.8 Nassau, NY 7,289 12,587 30,695 4,665 2,370 7.9 18.7 Queens, NY 5,443 21,315 57,013 3,203 1,539 7.0 25.7 New York, NY 4,531 29,811 45,611 2,701 1,269 6.1 31.8 Orange, NY 4,410 30,875 22,978 2,091 2,058 4.5 36.3 Kings, NY 3,039 14,163 42,392 1,800 973 4.4 40.7 Middlesex, NJ 3,430 5,663 26,425 1,960 1,269 3.9 53.1 Westchester, NY 3,229 9,680 20,815 1,923 1,154 3.7 56.8 Bergen, NJ 2,691 7,945 27,835 1,451 1,726 3.6 60.4 Monmouth, NJ 3,143 3,028 18,971 1,820 1,226 3.4 63.8 Essex, NJ 2,435 8,114 27,325 1,466 808 3.2 67.0 Ocean, NJ 3,291 1,500 13,754 1,802 1,404 3.1 70.1 Mercer, NJ 2,950 16,426 27,098 1,113 1,608 3.0 73.1 Hudson, NJ 2,529 22,745 25,572 1,004 1,241 2.9 76.0 Union, NJ 2,092 5,393 21,149 1,263 688 2.7 78.7 Morris, NJ 2,038 3,753 16,208 1,301 648 2.5 81.2 Dutchess, NY 2,804 4,786 11,471 1,387 1,330 2.5 83.7 Bronx, NY 1,460 6,723 20,299 849 503 2.1 85.8 Rockland, NY 1,762 9,541 10,621 928 625 1.9 87.7 Somerset, NJ 1,523 2,490 9,743 816 610 1.6 89.3 Passaic, NJ 994 4,349 13,645 658 260 1.5 92.3 Richmond, NY 1,776 1,079 8,399 708 1,009 1.4 95.1 Hunterdon, NJ 1,490 1,158 8,494 628 809 1.3 96.4 Sussex, NJ 1,225 872 5,191 612 574 1.1 97.5 Warren, NJ 1,204 975 6,358 600 530 1.1 98.6 Putnam, NY 1,040 548 3,083 505 512 0.9 99.5 Burlington, NJ 2,298 2,330 15,113 1,326 836 2.5 Ulster, NY 2,328 3,818 8,417 1,025 1,235 1.9 Sullivan, NY 1,200 612 2,875 625 544 1.0 Greene, NY 936 3,836 7,511 375 503 0.9 Columbia, NY 1,018 585 3,497 420 574 0.8 Delaware, NY 996 879 2,705 496 475 0.8 Applied to New York, this process identifies Suffolk, Nassau, Queens, New York, Orange, Kings, Westchester, and Dutchess as having elevated emissions relative to the remainder of the C/ MSA.

Applied to New Jersey, the process identifies Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Ocean, Mercer, Hudson, Union, and Morris as having elevated emissions relative to the remainder of the C/ MSA.

Putnam, Sussex, and Ocean Counties do not have any significant point sources. 6 27 Factor 2: Air quality County PM2.5 2001 2003 Design Value ( µ g/ m3) Suffolk, NY 12.3 Nassau, NY 12.4 Queens, NY 13.6 New York, NY 17.7 Orange, NY 11.6 Kings, NY 14.9 Middlesex, NJ 12.7 Fairfield, CT 13.3 New Haven, CT 16.7 Westchester, NY 12.5 Bergen, NJ 13.8 Monmouth, NJ No monitor Essex, NJ 14.5 Ocean, NJ 11.7 Mercer, NJ 14.0 Hudson, NJ 14.8 Union, NJ 15.7 Morris, NJ 12.6 Dutchess, NY 11.0 Bronx, NY 15.8 Rockland, NY NA Somerset, NJ No monitor Passaic, NJ 13.3 Richmond, NY 12.2 Hunterdon, NJ No monitor Sussex, NY No monitor Warren, NJ No monitor Putnam, NY No monitor 6 28 Ulster, NY No monitor Sullivan, NY No monitor Greene, NY No monitor Columbia, NY No monitor Delaware, NY No monitor All counties with design values above the standard have been recommended for nonattainment designation by New York and New Jersey. Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, Queens, Kings, Westchester, and Richmond counties in New York had design values approaching the standard. Middlesex, Bergen, Essex, Mercer, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic had design values approaching the standard in New Jersey.

The following New York counties are adjacent to counties with violating monitors: Westchester, Queens, Kings, and Richmond. The following New Jersey counties are adjacent to counties with violating monitors: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Somerset, and Morris.

Factor 3: Population/ Population density County 2002 Population 2002 Population Density ( population per sq mi) Suffolk, NY 1,458,655 1601 Nassau, NY 1,344,892 4686 Queens, NY 2,237,815 20,530 New York, NY 1,546,856 55,245 Orange, NY 356,773 437 Kings, NY 2,488,194 35,045 Middlesex, NJ 775,549 2,494 Westchester, NY 937,279 2165 Bergen, NJ 895,091 3,825 Monmouth, NJ 629,836 1,334 Essex, NJ 798,301 6,336 Ocean, NJ 537,065 844 Mercer, NJ 359,463 1,591 Hudson, NJ 611,439 13,009 Union, NJ 530,763 5,153 Morris, NJ 478,730 1,021 6 29 Dutchess, NY 287,752 359 Bronx, NY 1,354,068 32,240 Rockland, NY 291,835 1677 Richmond, NY 457,383 7,752 Somerset, NJ 309,886 1,016 Passaic, NJ 496,646 2,685 Ulster, NY 179,986 160 Hunterdon, NJ 125, 795 293 Sussex, NJ 148,680 285 Warren, NJ 107,537 300 Putnam, NY 98,257 424 Sullivan, NY 74,273 77 Greene, NY 48,538 75 Columbia, NY 63,532 100 Delaware, NY 47,302 33 Due to their large concentrated population and relative land area size, the counties within New York City ( i. e., New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond counties) are high for this factor ( i. e., high population densities, high population relative to the remainder of the CMSA and adjacent counties). Suffolk, Nassau, and Westchester counties in New York; and Middlesex, Essex, Hudson, and Union in New Jersey also score moderately high for this factor.

Factor 4: Traffic and commuting patterns County VMT1 ( 1000 miles) # Commuters to New York Co. # Commuters to Bronx Co. # Commuters to Union Co. # Commuters to New Haven, CT Suffolk, NY 7,414 41,121 2,614 180 113 Nassau, NY 6,875 94,485 6,274 187 90 Queens, NY 10,441 346,268 18,373 780 138 New York, NY 7,961 631,132 20,775 967 178 Orange, NY 3,628 9,610 2,414 147 29 Kings, NY 12,313 341,155 11,365 1,567 112 Middlesex, NJ 5,794 25,765 355 26,653 51 Westchester, NY 4,964 79,643 27,053 327 343 6 30 Bergen, NJ 6,732 61,253 5,353 5,124 74 Monmouth, NJ 5,146 22,425 313 8,319 32 Essex, NJ 6,356 28,076 782 24,052 10 Ocean, NJ 3,641 2,964 115 4,567 13 Mercer, NJ 3,869 5,654 147 1,291 15 Hudson, NJ 4,518 58,423 1,214 6,740 23 Union, NJ 4,034 16,305 417 113,263 11 Morris, NJ 3,939 11,516 268 8,755 15 Dutchess, NY 2,905 3,963 1,085 22 199 Bronx, NY 6,440 159,664 168,903 586 56 Rockland, NY 1,413 17,025 6,245 350 56 Somerset, NJ 2,209 6,243 87 11,835 14 Passaic, NJ 3,568 8,402 473 2,943 5 Richmond, NY 2,030 53,249 1,095 1,486 11 Ulster, NY 1,850 1,565 1,565 0 11 Fairfield, CT 7,889 24,831 1,258 56 21,900 New Haven, CT 6,989 1,584 183 23 290,098 Hartford, CT 8,105 460 36 11 16,948 New London, CT 2,958 126 19 9 1,638 Hunterdon, NJ 1,893 1,176 7 3,069 0 Sussex, NJ 1,323 1,449 94 967 13 Warren, NJ 1,473 562 5 991 0 Putnam, NY 781 4,416 2,021 30 181 Sullivan, NY 683 829 110 6 0 Greene, NY 643 305 10 8 0 Columbia, NY 754 610 37 0 4 Delaware, NY 508 248 9 0 4 Note: CT counties shown for comparison purposes 1 Vehicle Miles Traveled within county in 2002 The largest number of commuters to counties with violating monitors in New York and New Jersey are from the following counties within New York City: New York, Queens, Kings, and 6 31 the Bronx. A slightly smaller but still significant number of commuters are also traveling into New York, Bronx, and Union counties from Nassau, Westchester, Suffolk, and Richmond Counties in New York; and Middlesex, Bergen, Monmouth, Essex, Hudson, and Union Counties in New Jersey. The remaining counties in New York and New Jersey have low numbers of commuters to counties in the C/ MSA with violating monitors.

Suffolk, Nassau, Queens, New York, Kings, and the Bronx in New York; and Middlesex, Bergen, and Essex in New Jersey score the highest for VMT when compared to the rest of the CMSA and adjacent areas.

Both New York and New Jersey counties have a very low number of commuters to New Haven County, CT.

Factor 5: Expected growth County 2002 Population % growth ( 90 00) Population Growth ( 90 00) Suffolk, NY 1,458,655 7 97,505 Nassau, NY 1,344,892 4 47,196 Queens, NY 2,237,815 14 277,781 New York, NY 1,546,856 3 49,659 Orange, NY 356,773 11 33,720 Kings, NY 2,488,194 7 164,662 Middlesex, NJ 775,549 12 78,382 Westchester, NY 937,279 6 48,593 Bergen, NJ 895,091 7 58,738 Monmouth, NJ 629,836 11 62,177 Essex, NJ 798,301 2 15,427 Ocean, NJ 537,065 18 77,713 Mercer, NJ 359,463 8 24,937 Hudson, NJ 611,439 10 55,876 Union, NJ 530,763 6 28,722 Morris, NJ 478,730 12 48,859 Dutchess, NY 287,752 8 20,688 Bronx, NY 1,354,068 11 128,861 Rockland, NY 291,835 8 21,278 6 32 Somerset, NJ 309,886 24 57,211 Passaic, NJ 496,646 8 35,989 Richmond, NY 457,383 17 64,751 Ulster, NY 179,986 8 12,445 Hunterdon, NJ 125,795 13 14,213 Sussex, NJ 148,680 10 13,223 Warren, NJ 107,537 12 10,830 Putnam, NY 98,257 14 11,804 Sullivan, NY 74,273 7 4,689 Greene, NY 48,538 8 3,456 Columbia, NY 63,532 0 112 Delaware, NY 47,302 2 830 Based upon an analysis of this factor, the counties of Queens, Kings, the Bronx, and Somerset counties have been identified as experiencing either significant recent growth on a percentage or absolute basis. Orange, Richmond, Ocean, Suffolk, Middlesex, Monmouth, Hudson, Morris, Richmond, Hunterdon, Sussex, Warren, and Putnam counties experienced moderate growth. The remaining counties have very low growth.

Factor 6: Meteorology This factor did not play a significant role in the decision making process for Queens, New York, Kings, Bronx, Richmond in New York. Meteorology did not play a significant role in the decision making process for New Jersey Counties with the exception of Ocean County.

County Prevailing Wind Direction %

NW SW SE NE New York, NY 34 29 11 26 Bronx, NY 33 30 12 25 Union, NJ 31 32 14 23 New Haven, CT 34 30 13 24 The prevailing wind direction to counties with violating monitors is predominantly from the northwest, southwest, and northeast.

Analysis of pollution roses and back trajectories to New Haven, CT showed a contribution from Suffolk, Nassau, Orange, Westchester, Dutchess, Rockland, and Ulster Counties. 6 33 EPA REMSAD ( Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition) model used during the analysis for the Interstate Air Quality Rule demonstrated that the maximum contribution from New York State to the monitor in New Haven was 0.85 µ g/ m3, or above the 0.15 µ g/ m3 threshold for determining whether emissions in a State make a significant contribution to PM2.5 nonattainment in another state.

Ocean County had a negligible contribution based upon the analysis of pollution roses and back trajectory analysis to New York City. Analysis of back trajectories ( HYSPLIT model) calculated and plotted for the thirty nine high PM days in New York City indicate that emissions from Ocean County have a very low impact on New York City. Back trajectories passed through Ocean County on only two days. Further review of these trajectories indicate the following:

August 28, 2001 Two out of the four trajectories plotted for this day passed through Ocean County. It is not likely that Ocean County was the source of the high PM on this day. The analysis from the Bronx speciation monitor showed that the particulate matter was mostly sulfate. Ocean County is a very low emitter of sulfur dioxide ( i. e. 1,500 released in 2001)

October 6, 2000 One out of four trajectories plotted for this day passed through Ocean County. This trajectory also passed through areas with a heavy concentration of point sources in the Camden/ Philadelphia and northeastern New Jersey areas before entering New York City from the west.

Factor 7: Geography/ topography The area does not have any geographical or topographical boundaries limiting its airshed in the areas.

Factor 8: Jurisdictional boundaries EPA is striving to achieve consistency with the 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas for purposes of state air quality planning. Although this factor is considered as part of the analysis, this factor is not a dominant factor in the decision making process.

All counties in New Jersey were designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. All counties within the New York portion of the NY NJ CT PA C/ MSA and adjacent counties, with the exception of Ulster, Sullivan, Columbia, and Delaware, were also designated nonattainment for ozone.

Factor 9: Level of control of emission sources This factor does not play a significant role in the decision making process. The level of control of emission sources is reflected in factor 1.

Justifications for Changes to EPA Recommendations Contained in the June 29, 2004 Letters to States 6 34 New Jersey EPA does not intend on modifying its recommendations concerning nonattainment designations and boundaries which were listed in the June 29, 2004 letter to New Jersey.

EPA provides further explanation for not including Cape May, Cumberland, Salem, Ocean, Sussex, Hunterdon and Warren counties in New Jersey in this section.

Cape May. EPA is recommending that Cape May County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitor in Atlantic County is attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the Philadelphia metropolitan area: the county has low emissions, low population and low population density, low growth, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) also shows low impact to counties with nonattainment monitors.

Cumberland. EPA is recommending that Cumberland County be designated as attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, nearby monitors in Atlantic and Gloucester Counties are attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the Philadelphia metropolitan area: the county has low emissions, low growth, low population and population density, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) also shows low impact to counties with nonattainment monitors.

Salem. EPA is recommending that Salem County be designated as attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitor in Gloucester County is attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the Philadelphia metropolitan area: the county has low overall emissions, low population and population density, low growth, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area.

Ocean. EPA is recommending that Ocean County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. The PM2.5 monitor in the county is monitoring below the standard. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas: the county does not have significant point sources and has a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) shows low impact from emissions to nearby counties with nonattainment monitors.

Sussex. EPA is recommending that Sussex County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitors in Passaic and Morris counties are attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York metropolitan area: the county has very 6 35 low emissions, low growth, low population and population density, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area.

Hunterdon. EPA is recommending that Hunterdon County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitors in Morris County are attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York metropolitan area: the county has very low emissions, low population and population density, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area.

Warren. EPA is recommending that Warren County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. The PM2.5 monitor in the county is monitoring below the standard. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York metropolitan area: the county has very low emissions, low population and population density, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area.

New York EPA does not intend on modifying its recommendations concerning nonattainment designations and boundaries which were listed in the June 29, 2004 letter to New York.

EPA provides further explanation for nonattainment designations for Orange and Rockland Counties. EPA also provides further explanation for not including Dutchess, Putnam, Ulster counties in the New York metropolitan nonattainment area.

Orange. EPA has determined that the violating monitor in New Haven County is not representative of community exposure. Notwithstanding that fact, EPA believes that Orange County contributes to PM 2.5 levels in the New York metropolitan area. Specifically, EPA has determined that emissions from Orange County are significant.. EPA also took into consideration that there are large power plants located in the county and that they contribute to the problem in the New York metropolitan area.

Rockland. EPA has determined that the violating monitor in New Haven County is not representative of community exposure. Notwithstanding that fact, EPA believes that Rockland County contributes to PM 2.5 levels in the New York metropolitan area. Specifically, EPA has determined that the number of commuters from Rockland County into the New York metropolitan area are significant. EPA also took into consideration that there are large power plants located in the county and that they contribute to the problem in the New York metropolitan area.

Dutchess. EPA is recommending that Dutchess County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. The PM2.5 monitor in the county is monitoring below the standard. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York: the county has a low population and population density, low growth, low VMT and a 6 36 low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) shows low impact from emissions to nearby counties with nonattainment monitors.

Putnam. EPA is recommending that Putnam be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitor in Westchester and Orange counties are attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York metropolitan area: the county has very low emissions, a low population and population density, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) shows low impact from emissions to nearby counties with nonattainment monitors.

Ulster. EPA is recommending that Ulster be designated attainment/ unclassifiable. Although the county does not have a PM2.5 monitor, the nearby monitors in Dutchess and Orange counties are attaining. Analysis of the 9 factors provides sufficient evidence that the county does not contribute to nonattainment monitors in the New York metropolitan area: the county has low emissions, a low population and population density, low growth, low VMT and a low number of commuters to nonattainment counties within the metropolitan area. Analysis of meteorology ( pollution and wind roses, and back trajectories) shows low impact from emissions to nearby counties with nonattainment monitors.


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5155]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-30-000]

Mountain States Transmission Intertie, LLC; NorthWestern
Corporation; Notice of Filing

January 22, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 15, 2009, Mountain States Transmission
Intertie, LLC (MSTI) and NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) filed
a Petition for Declaratory Order on Rate Treatments and Open Season for
Transmission Export Project. MSTI and NorthWestern request the
Commission to confirm that MSTI may charge negotiated rates for a
proposed new high voltage transmission project to provide service from
the NorthWestern system to southern Idaho, and that MSTI's proposal to
give customers in NorthWestern's current MSTI service request queue a
preference to the extent capacity is over-subscribed in the MSTI open
season and to terminate the NorthWestern queue is not unduly
discriminatory.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1910 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19695-19697]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07681]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77474; File No. TP 16-7]

Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17
and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded
Fund Trust, JPMorgan Diversified Return International Currency Hedged
ETF, and JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency Hedged ETF
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e)
of Regulation M

March 30, 2016.
    By letter dated March 30, 2016 (the ``Letter''), as supplemented by
conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets,
counsel for J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust (the ``Trust''), on
behalf of the Trust, the JPMorgan Diversified Return International
Currency Hedged ETF and the JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency
Hedged ETF (each, a ``Fund'' and collectively the ``Funds''), any
national securities exchange on or through which shares issued by the
Funds (``Shares'') may subsequently trade, SEI Investments Distribution
Co. (the ``Distributor''), and persons or entities engaging in
transactions in Shares (collectively, the ``Requestors''), requested
exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''), and
Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in connection with secondary market
transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations
of Shares of at least 50,000 shares (``Creation Units'').
    The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
(``1940 Act''), as an open-end management investment company. The
JPMorgan Diversified Return International Currency Hedged ETF will seek
to provide investment results that closely correspond, before fees and
expenses, to the performance of the FTSE Developed ex North America
Diversified Factor 100% Hedged to USD Index (the ``JPIH Index''), which
consists of (a) the equity securities included in the FTSE Developed ex
North America Diversified Factor Index (the ``JPIH Underlying Index''),
and (b) a currency hedging component (reflecting the effect of selling
the applicable non-U.S. currency forward each month), which is intended
solely to mitigate exposure to fluctuations between the currencies of
the securities included in the JPIH Index and the U.S. dollar. The Fund
intends to track the JPIH Index by (a) holding shares of the JPMorgan
Diversified Return International Equity ETF (the ``JPIH Underlying
ETF''), an ETF whose investment objective is to seek investment results
that correspond generally to the performance, before fees and expenses,
of the JPIH Underlying Index, instead of the Fund investing directly in
the shares of issuers of the individual securities of the JPIH
Underlying Index \1\ and (b) entering into foreign currency forward
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Each Fund may, in very rare instances, invest directly in
the shares of issuers of the individual securities of the applicable
Underlying Index instead of holding shares of the applicable
Underlying ETF if holding those individual securities would provide
greater liquidity or other efficiencies to the Fund or if the
Underling ETF is no longer accepting purchases. In such event, the
Fund will not operate as an ETF of ETFs for that day. Instead, the
Fund will operate to meet the conditions of the ETF Class Relief,
including the Equity ETF Class Letter. See, e.g., Letter from James
A. Brigagliano, Acting Associate Director, Division of Market
Regulation, to Stuart M. Strauss, Esq., Clifford Chance US LLP
(October 24, 2006) regarding class relief for exchange traded index
funds; Letter from Catherine McGuire, Esq., Chief Counsel, Division
of Market Regulation, to the Securities Industry Association
Derivative Products Committee (November 21, 2005); Letter from
Racquel L. Russell, Branch Chief, Division of Market Regulation, to
George T. Simon, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP (June 21, 2006); Letter
from James A. Brigagliano, Associate Director, Division of Market
Regulation, to Benjamin Haskin, Esq., Willkie. Farr & Gallagher LLP
(April 9, 2007); or Letter from Josephine Tao, Assistant Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, to Domenick Pugliese, Esq., Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP (June 27, 2007).

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

    Similarly, the JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency Hedged
ETF will seek to provide investment results that closely correspond,
before fees and expenses, to the performance of the FTSE Developed
Europe Diversified Factor 100% Hedged to USD Index (the ``JPEH Index''
and together with the JPIH Index, the ``Indexes''; each an ``Index''),
which consists of (a) the equity securities included in the FTSE
Developed Europe Diversified Factor Index (the ``JPEH Underlying
Index'' and together with the JPIH Underlying Index, the ``Underlying
Indexes''; each an ``Underlying Index''), and (b) a currency hedging
component (reflecting the effect of selling the applicable non-U.S.
currency forward each month), which is intended solely to mitigate
exposure to fluctuations between the currencies of the securities
included in the JPEH Index and the U.S. dollar. The Fund intends to
track the JPEH Index by (a) holding shares of the JPMorgan Diversified
Return Europe Equity ETF (the ``JPEH Underlying ETF'' and together with
the JPIH Underlying ETF, the ``Underlying ETFs''; each an ``Underlying
ETF''), an ETF whose investment objective is to seek investment results
that correspond generally to the performance, before fees and expenses,
of the JPEH Underlying Index, instead of the Fund investing directly in
the shares of issuers of the individual securities of the JPEH
Underlying Index; and (b) entering into foreign currency forward
contracts.
    Accordingly, each Fund intends to operate primarily as an ``ETF of
ETFs.'' Except for the fact that each Fund intends to operate primarily
as an ETF of ETFs, and enter into forward currency contracts as
described above, each Fund will operate in a manner similar to its
respective Underlying ETF.
    The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
     Shares of each Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-
end management investment company that is registered with the
Commission;
     The Trust will continuously redeem Creation Units at net
asset value (``NAV''), and the secondary market price of the Shares
should not vary substantially from the NAV of such Shares;
     Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded on the NYSE
Arca (the ``Exchange'') or other exchange in accordance with exchange
listing standards that are, or will become, effective pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act;
     Each ETF in which each Fund is invested will meet all
conditions set forth in a relevant class relief letter; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     All the components of each Index (except for each Index's
currency hedging component) \3\ will have publicly available last sale
trade information;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While each Index's currency hedging component does not have
last sale information in the manner associated with equities, the
prices for the relevant currency hedging contracts are publicly
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The intra-day proxy value of each Fund per share and the
value of each Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market
data vendor throughout the trading day;
     On each business day before the opening of business on the
Exchange, the Funds' custodian, through the National Securities
Clearing Corporation, will make publicly available the list of the
names and the numbers of securities and other assets (except the
forward currency contracts) of each Fund's portfolio that will be
applicable that day to creation and redemption requests;
     The Exchange or other market information provider will
disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the
facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing
on a per-share basis, the current value of the securities and cash to
be deposited as consideration for the purchase of Creation Units;
     Each Fund will invest at least 80% of its total assets
(but typically far more) in component securities of the applicable
Index (primarily by indirect investments through the applicable
Underlying ETF), except for entering into forward currency contracts
\4\ designed solely to hedge against each Fund's exposure to
fluctuations between the applicable non-U.S. currencies in each Index
and the U.S. dollar;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While exact percentages are dependent on movements in the
applicable currency market, as a practical matter, each Fund is
likely to have the vast majority of its assets invested in equities
(i.e., investments in the Underlying ETF) rather than forward
currency contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Each Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate
an effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to
create workable hedges;
     The Requestors believe that arbitrageurs are expected to
take advantage of price variations between each Fund's market price and
its NAV;
     The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the
transparency of each Fund's portfolio and the availability of the
intra-day indicative value, the liquidity of securities and other
assets held by each Fund, and the ability to acquire such securities,
as well as arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges; and
     A close alignment between the market price of Shares and
each Fund's NAV is expected.

Regulation M

    While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management
investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102
of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for
the Shares.\5\ However, we find that it is appropriate in the public
interest and is consistent with the protection of investors to grant a
conditional exemption from Rules 101 and 102 to persons who may be
deemed to be participating in a distribution of Shares and the Fund as
described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ While ETFs operate under exemptions from the definitions of
``open-end company'' under Section 5(a)(1) of the 1940 Act and
``redeemable security'' under Section 2(a)(32) of the 1940 Act, each
Fund and its securities do not meet those definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 101 of Regulation M

    Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule
that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any ``distribution
participant'' and its ``affiliated purchasers'' from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase
any security which is the subject of a distribution until after the
applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the
rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines ``distribution'' to mean any
offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading
transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of
special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101
of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters,
brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or
are participating in a distribution of

securities. The Shares are in a continuous distribution and, as such,
the restricted period in which distribution participants and their
affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or
attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase extends
indefinitely.
    Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management
investment company that will continuously redeem at the NAV Creation
Unit size aggregations of the Shares of each Fund and that a close
alignment between the market price of Shares and each Fund's NAV is
expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the
Trust an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with
respect to each Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a
distribution of Shares of each Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares
during their participation in such distribution.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, we confirm the interpretation that a
redemption of Creation Unit size aggregations of Shares of each Fund
and the receipt of securities in exchange by a participant in a
distribution of Shares of each Fund would not constitute an
``attempt to induce any person to bid for or purchase, a covered
security during the applicable restricted period'' within the
meaning of Rule 101 of Regulation M and, therefore, would not
violate that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 102 of Regulation M

    Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security
holders, or any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a
covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection
with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer
or selling security holder.
    Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management
investment company that will redeem at the NAV Creation Units of Shares
of each Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of
Shares and each Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (e) of
Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to the Funds, thus permitting
each Fund to redeem Shares of each Fund during the continuous offering
of such Shares.

Rule 10b-17

    Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class
of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified
actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class
of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the
representations and facts in the Letter, and subject to the conditions
below, we find that it is appropriate in the public interest, and
consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust a
conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because market participants will
receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending
distribution, and thus the concerns that the Commission raised in
adopting Rule 10-b17 will not be implicated.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We also note that timely compliance with Rule 10b-
17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) would be impractical because it is not
possible for the Funds to accurately project ten days in advance
what dividend, if any, would be paid on a particular record date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 101(d) of Regulation M, that
the Trust, based on the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter, is exempt from the requirements of Rule 101 with respect to
each Fund, thus permitting persons who may be deemed to be
participating in a distribution of Shares of each Fund to bid for or
purchase such Shares during their participation in such distribution.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of Regulation M,
that the Trust, based on the representations and the facts presented in
the Letter, is exempt from the requirements of Rule 102 with respect to
each Fund, thus permitting each Fund to redeem Shares of each Fund
during the continuous offering of such Shares.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 10b-17(b)(2), that the
Trust, based on the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter, and subject to the conditions below, is exempt from the
requirements of Rule 10b-17 with respect to transactions in the Shares
of each Fund.
    This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
     The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17 except for Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
     The Trust will provide the information required by Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable
before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later
than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to
distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
    This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at
any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Persons
relying upon this exemptive relief shall discontinue transactions
involving the Shares of the Funds, pending presentation of the facts
for the Commission's consideration, in the event that any material
change occurs with respect to any of the facts or representations made
by the Requestors and, consistent with all preceding letters,
particularly with respect to the close alignment between the market
price of Shares and each Fund's NAV. In addition, persons relying on
this exemptive relief are directed to the antifraud and anti-
manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a)
and 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance
with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal
securities laws must rest with the persons relying on this exemptive
relief.
    This order should not be considered a view with respect to any
other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but
not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the
applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed
transactions.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(6) and (9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07681 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6082-6086]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0085; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00498-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks
caused by cracked, brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found
during scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. This
proposed AD would require an inspection of the oxygen hose assembly to
determine if an affected part number is installed, and replacement of
affected oxygen hoses. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would
allow repetitive testing of the oxygen system until affected hoses are
replaced. This proposed AD would also prohibit installation of an
affected oxygen hose. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 21,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier
Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road
West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]; internet https://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0085; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0085; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00498-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority

for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-17, dated April 28, 2021 (also
referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0085.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks caused by
cracked, brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found during
scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. The FAA is
proposing this AD to prevent a leak in the oxygen line, which may
result in failure to provide oxygen to passengers and crew and result
in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere creating a fire risk on the airplane.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-35-014, Revision 01,
dated February 12, 2021.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-015, Revision 01, dated
February 12, 2021.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-5005, Revision 01,
dated February 12, 2021.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6005, Revision 01,
dated February 12, 2021.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6501, Revision 01,
dated February 12, 2021.
    This service information describes procedures for doing an
inspection of the oxygen hose assembly installations to determine if a
part number within the series O2C20T1 is installed, and replacing the
oxygen hose if necessary. For certain airplanes, the service
information specifies optional repetitive testing of the oxygen system
that would allow for delay of the replacement. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described. This proposed AD would
also prohibit installation of an affected oxygen hose.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 409 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 36 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up              $0   Up to $3,060..............  Up to $1,251,540.
 to $3,060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 25 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $125........  Up to $2,250.
 hour = Up to $2,125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2022-0085; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00498-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 21, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
9002 through 9879 inclusive and 9998.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks caused by
cracked, brittle or broken oxygen hoses that were found during
scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address a leak in the oxygen line, which may
result in failure to provide oxygen to passengers and crew and
result in an oxygen enriched atmosphere creating a fire risk on the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an
inspection of the oxygen hose assembly to determine if any hose
having a part number (P/N) in the O2C20T1 series is installed, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this
AD. If P/N O2C20T1 series is installed, or if any test fails as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight,
replace all the oxygen hoses, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information specified in
figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.025

(h) Optional Interim Testing for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in figure 2 of paragraph (h) of this
AD: The oxygen hose replacement, if required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, may be delayed if all conditions specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (3) of this AD are met.
    (1) The oxygen system is tested at the applicable times
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (i) If the Aircraft Completion Center Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) for the passenger cabin interior was issued within
5 years before the effective date of this AD: The oxygen system is
tested within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 months.
    (ii) If the Aircraft Completion Center STC for the passenger
cabin interior was issued 5 years or more before the effective date
of this AD: The oxygen system is tested within 6 months after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
15 months.
    (2) All P/N O2C20T1 series hoses are replaced before further
flight as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD after any hose fails
any test.

    (3) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, all P/N
O2C20T1 series hoses are replaced within 10 years after issuance of
the Aircraft Completion Center STC for the passenger cabin interior
as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD provided that all P/N
O2C20T1 series hoses in the flight compartment and the third crew
(left-hand side enclosure) are replaced within 6 months after the
effective date of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.026

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
oxygen hose assembly having a P/N in the O2C20T1 series on any
airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the applicable service information specified
in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-35-014, dated September
28, 2020.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-015, dated September 28,
2020.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-5005, dated September 28,
2020.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6005, dated September 28,
2020.
    (5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6501, dated September 28,
2020.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-17, dated April 28, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2022-0085.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Elizabeth
Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative
Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
https://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on January 28, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02141 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20619-20620]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13703-001]

FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request To Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13703-001.
    c. Date Filed: January 31, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: FFP Missouri 2, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Yocona River in Yalobusha County, Mississippi.
The proposed project would occupy United States lands administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, FFP Missouri 2,
LLC, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Patti Leppert at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. FFP Missouri 2, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on January 31, 2012. FFP Missouri 2, LLC provided
public notice of its request on January 17, January 20, and January 24,
2012. By letter dated March 27, 2012, the Acting Director of the
Division of Hydropower Licensing approved FFP Missouri 2, LLC's request
to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(1) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; (2)
NMFS under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and
(3) the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating FFP Missouri 2, LLC as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. FFP Missouri 2, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on

the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8154 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25029-25030]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, June 1,
2017 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
    Chairman Clayton, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from
the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 25, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11281 Filed 5-26-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 70694]
[DOCID:fr21no08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National
Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, announce the next meeting of the National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).
This notification provides the date, format, and agenda for the
meeting.
    Dates and Location: The NPOAG ARC will hold a meeting on December
1st, 2008. The meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference
call. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific Standard
Time on December 1st. This NPOAG meeting will be open to the public.
Interested persons may listen in on the conference call (see Public
Participation at the Meeting).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, AWP-1SP, Special
Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region
Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:
(310) 725-3800, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Karen Trevino,
National Park Service, Natural Sounds Program, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Suite
100, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA),
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, required the
establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. The Act
requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of
general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental
concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and
the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of
the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve
alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and
recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on:
Implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other
measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national
parks; and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on
safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over national parks or tribal lands.

Agenda for the December 1, 2008, NPOAG Meeting

    The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, the
following: review of a Strategic Plan for the NPOAG, review and
approval of the meeting minutes from the September 3-4, 2008 NPOAG
meeting in Port Angeles, WA; update on ongoing Air Tour Management Plan
(ATMP) program projects; discussion of the Aviation Environmental
Design Tool (AEDT) model, and highlights from the Human Response to
Aviation Noise workshop held at Volpe Center in October 2008.

Public Participation for the Meeting

    This NPOAG meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference
call. Members of the public will be able to listen in on the
proceedings. Information regarding how the public may access this
conference call in a ``listen mode'' will be posted on the FAA's ATMP
Web site (http://www.atmp.faa.gov) by November 20, 2008. Other
supplementary meeting information may also be posted on the ATMP Web
site.

Record of the Meeting

    If you are unable to participate in this NPOAG meeting conference
call, a summary record of the meeting will be made available under the
NPOAG section of the FAA's ATMP Web site at http://www.atmp.faa.gov or
through the Special Programs Staff; Western-Pacific Region, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-207,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA on November 13, 2008.
Barry S. Brayer,
Manager, Special Programs Office, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. E8-27539 Filed 11-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 113-114]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-54-000]

 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Consolidated Edison
Company, New York, Inc., Linden VFT, LLC, Hudson Transmission Partners,
LLC, New York Power Authority; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on December 22, 2017, pursuant to sections 206 and
309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 824v and 825e, and Rule
206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), New York Independent System Operator,
Inc. (NYISO), Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., Linden VFT,
LLC, Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC and New York Power Authority
(collectively, Respondents), alleging that New Jersey ratepayers have
been, and will continue to be detrimentally affected by current and
projected changes to PJM Tariff cost allocations connected to the
Bargain-Linden Corridor (BLC), various actions by several merchant
transmission facilities regarding the conversion of their Firm
Transmissions Withdrawal Rights (FTWRs) to non-FTWRs with the
expectation of no cost allocation for BLC Regional transmission
Expansion Plan costs, and other actions connected to joint NYISO and
PJM agreements that result in unjust and unreasonable rates and charges
to New Jersey ratepayers, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials, or otherwise obtained.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests
must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer,
motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2018.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28274 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54993-54994]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0741]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0036

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0036,
Plan Approval and Records for U.S. and Foreign Tank Vessels Carrying
Oil in Bulk; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the
Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 6,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0741] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. SE, STOP 7710,
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0741], and
must be received by December 6, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for U.S. and Foreign Tank Vessels
Carrying Oil in Bulk.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0036.
    Summary: This information collection aids the Coast Guard in
determining if a vessel complies with certain safety and environmental
protection standards. Plans, to include records, for construction or
modification of U.S. or foreign vessels submitted and maintained on
board are required for compliance with these standards.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code 3703 provides the Coast Guard with the
authority to regulate design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels carrying oil in bulk. See e.g., 33 CFR part 157, Rules for
the Protection of the Marine Environment Relating to Tank Vessels
Carrying Oil in Bulk, and 46 CFR Subchapter D, Tank Vessels.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,109
hours to 2,497 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated number
of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: September 29, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-21638 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P