[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52718-52719]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0657; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-24]

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Danville, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace at Danville,
IL. The FAA has determined that, because of changes in the composition
of flight operations at Vermilion Regional Airport, a Class E surface
area is no longer needed to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for standard instrument
approach procedures at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0657/Airspace Docket No. 13-
AGL-24, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0657/
Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-24.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as a surface
area at Vermilion Regional Airport, Danville, IL. Curtailment of
scheduled air taxi operations and changes in airport usage has rendered
this airspace as unnecessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order
7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would remove controlled airspace at Vermilion Regional Airport,
Danville, IL.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9W,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and
effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AGL IL E2 Danville, IL [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 16, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-20722 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33586]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4122-DR;Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Alaska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Alaska (FEMA-4122-DR), dated June 25, 2013, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Dolph A. Diemont as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-13636 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46974-46975]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2563-004; ER10-1894-007; ER10-1882-004; ER10-
3036-004; ER10-3042-005.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation, Wisconsin River Power Company, WPS Power
Development, LLC, Combined Locks Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the WEC MBR Entities.
    Filed Date: 7/29/15.
    Accession Number: 20150729-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2317-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 290 Fifth Revised--
NITSA with Oldcastle Materials to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2318-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2319-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy V, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2320-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy VII, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2321-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy I LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2322-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy VI, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2323-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy IV, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: notice of cancellation to be
effective 7/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2324-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Missouri River Energy
Services Members Formula Rate to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2325-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt
Energy Develop & Construct Corp Karen Wind Farm to be effective 8/1/
2015.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2326-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Blythe Mesa Solar,
LLC to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2327-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT--Revise Attachment K,
TCC and TNC Rate Update to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2328-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4227; NQ-131 (ISA) to be effective 7/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2329-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised NITSA and NOA
between PNM and the City of Gallup, New Mexico to be effective 7/1/
2015.
    Filed Date: 7/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20150731-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Blue Sky East, LLC, Blue Sky West, LLC, Canandaigua
Power Partners, LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Erie Wind,
LLC,

Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, Evergreen Wind
Power III, LLC, First Wind Energy Marketing, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar
1, LLC, Longfellow Wind, LLC, Meadow Creek Project Company LLC, Milford
Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC, Milford Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC,
Niagara Wind Power, LLC, Regulus Solar, LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC,
Stetson Holdings, LLC, Stetson Wind II, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC,
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Blue Sky East,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C., Brandon Shores LLC,
Brunner Island, LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C.,
Dartmouth Power Associates Limited Partnership, Elmwood Park Power,
LLC, Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC, H.A. Wagner LLC, Hatchet Ridge
Wind, LLC, Holtwood, LLC, Lost Creek Wind, LLC, Lower Mount Bethel
Energy, LLC, Lyonsdale Biomass, LLC, Martins Creek, LLC, Montour, LLC,
Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership L.P., Ocotillo Express LLC,
Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP, Post Rock Wind Power Project, LLC,
Raven Power Marketing LLC, ReEnergy Ashland LLC, ReEnergy Black River
LLC, ReEnergy Fort Fairfield LLC, ReEnergy Livermore Falls LLC,
ReEnergy Sterling CT Limited Partnership, ReEnergy Stratton LLC,
Sapphire Power Marketing LLC, Spring Valley Wind LLC, Susquehanna
Nuclear, LLC, Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Talen Ironwood, LLC, Talen
Montana, LLC, Talen New Jersey Biogas, LLC, Talen New Jersey Solar,
LLC, Talen Renewable Energy, LLC, TrailStone Power, LLC, York
Generation Company LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Hatchet Ridge
Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Valley Solar Energy II, LLC, Bluegrass
Generation Company, L.L.C., Calhoun Power Company, LLC, Carville Energy
LLC, Centinela Solar Energy, LLC, Cherokee County Cogeneration
Partners, LLC, Columbia Energy LLC, Decatur Energy Center, LLC, DeSoto
County Generating Company, LLC, Doswell Limited Partnership, Las Vegas
Power Company, LLC, LS Power Marketing, LLC, LSP University Park, LLC,
Mobile Energy LLC, Oneta Power, LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C.,
Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C., Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC,
Seneca Generation, LLC, University Park Energy, LLC, Wallingford Energy
LLC, West Deptford Energy, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Arlington Valley
Solar Energy II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Goshen Phase II LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Goshen Phase II
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Solar Star California XIII, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Solar Star
California XIII, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.
    Applicants: Battery Utility of Ohio, LLC, Border Winds Energy, LLC,
Pleasant Valley Wind, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Battery Utility
of Ohio, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150730-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 31, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19302 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33290-33293]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14815]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86329; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule for XSP Fees and PAR Official Fees

July 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 1, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/About CBOE/
CBOELegalRegulatoryHome .aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees schedule to (i) adopt a fee
for Customer Mini-SPX Index (``XSP'') options (an Exchange proprietary
product) transactions, (ii) amend the Customer Large Trade Discount for
XSP orders, (iii) eliminate a sliding scale transaction fee for Market
Maker XSP options transactions and propose a flat-rate transaction, and
(iv) eliminate Par Official fees, effective July 1, 2019.
    First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a fee for Customer (origin
code ``C'') transactions in XSP (a proprietary product). The Exchange
currently does not assess any fee (or provide any rebate) for Customer
orders in XSP. The Exchange now proposes to adopt a fee of $0.04 per
contract for Customer orders in XSP. The Exchange notes that it
currently assesses Customer transaction fees associated with other
index products, and the proposed transaction fee for XSP is lower than
that of Customer fees associated with such other index products. For
example, the Exchange assesses a Customer transaction fee of $0.18 for
orders in most all other index products (including other proprietary
index products), as well as a transaction fee of $0.25 for certain MSCI
index options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Excluding products listed in Underlying Symbol List A. See
Cboe Options Fee Schedule, ``Index Options Rate Table--All Index
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A and Sector Indexes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Customer Large Trade
Discount program with respect to XSP customer transactions. The
Customer Large Trade Discount program (the ``Discount'') provides a
discount in the form of a cap on the quantity of customer (``C'' origin
code'') contracts that are assessed transactions fees in certain
options classes. The Discount table in the Fees Schedule sets forth the
quantity of contracts necessary for a large customer trade to qualify
for the Discount, which varies by product. Different caps are set for
(i) VIX, (ii) SPX (including SPXW), (iii) ETF and ETN Options and (iv)
``Other Index Options'', which currently includes XSP. More
specifically, Customer transaction fees for index products (including
XSP) are currently only charged up to the first 5,000 contracts. The
Exchange proposes to raise the quantity of XSP contracts necessary for
a large customer trade to qualify for the Discount from 5,000 contracts
per order to 20,000 contracts per order. The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to moderate the discount level for Customer (C) orders
in XSP in light of the increased sizes of qualifying Discount XSP
orders. The Exchange believes that notwithstanding the proposed change,
the large trade discount for Customer orders in XSP options will
continue to incentivize the sending of large customer orders in XSP,
providing an increase in trading opportunities which attracts Market-
Makers. As a result, an increase in Market-Maker activity facilitates
tighter spreads, which may lead to additional increase of order flow
from other market participants.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the sliding-scale
transaction fees for Market-Maker (origin code ``M'') transactions in
XSP options, which currently range from $0.03 to $0.23 per contract,
contingent on the volume threshold (per tier level) reached. The
criterion for tier levels is comprised of the percentage of a Market-
Maker's volume transacted in XSP options during the calendar month. In
lieu of assessing such transactions on a sliding-scale, the Exchange
now proposes to assess a flat-rate fee of $0.23 per contract for
Market-Maker orders in XSP. Particularly, the Exchange notes that there
are currently fewer than five Market-Makers in XSP options to which the
fees under the current sliding-scale structure apply. The Exchange
notes that, on average in recent months, the percentage of volume in
XSP options among these Market-Makers has hovered around the two lowest
volume thresholds (which assess a transaction fee of $0.23 per contract
or $0.17 per contract). Therefore, the Exchange has determined that the
proposed change to exclude XSP options from the sliding-scale
transaction fees and to asses a flat fee of $0.23 per contract in XSP
options for Market-Makers better reflects the current volume trends in
this options class, and will allow for the Exchange to capture revenue
from potential spikes in volume that would occur outside of the current
trend. In addition, the Exchange notes that various other index
products, including proprietary products like that of XSP options, are
also excluded from the sliding-scale [sic] scale transaction fee table
and assessed a flat-rate fee that is commensurate with the proposed
flat-rate fee for Market-Maker transactions in XSP.\4\ For example, the
Exchange assesses a flat-rate fee of $0.23 per contract for Market-
Maker transactions

in Cboe Volatility Index (``VIX'') options (a proprietary product) and
$0.30 per contract for transactions in Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'')
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Options Fee Schedule, ``Specified Proprietary Index
Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A and Sector Indexes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate its PAR Official Fees.
Currently, the Exchange assesses fees for transactions executed through
PAR Official in VIX and Volatility Index options, ranging from $0.03 to
$0.12 per order executed, and for transactions executed through PAR
Official in all other options classes, ranging from $0.02 to $0.04. The
fees assessed per contract executed are currently contingent on the
tier level reached, for which the criteria for each level is the
percentage of monthly volume executed through PAR Official in either
VIX or Volatility Index options or in all other options classes.
    PAR Officials are Exchange employees or independent contractors
whom the Exchange may designate as being responsible for operating a
PAR workstation and effecting proper executions placed with them. The
Exchange notes that in 2011 it implemented PAR Official fees in order
to help offset the Exchange's costs of providing PAR Official services
(e.g., salaries, etc.).\5\ Today, PAR Officials no longer maintain many
of their responsibilities as they did when the Exchange implemented PAR
Official fees; among other things, PAR Officials no longer maintain the
book with respect to assigned classes, as the electronic book manages
electronic orders and quotes, no longer have responsibilities with
respect to routed orders under the current linkage plan,\6\ and (with
the migration of Cboe Options trading platform to that of the
technology of its affiliated exchanges, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.
(``C2''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options''), and Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), in the fourth quarter of 2019) order
routed through PAR will no longer be automatically routed for manual
handling by a PAR Official. As a result, the Exchange has determined
that PAR Official fees are no longer necessary to assist the Exchange
in offsetting its costs of providing PAR Official services, and now
proposes to eliminate its PAR Official fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67301 (January 11,
2011), 76 FR 2934 (January 18, 2011) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Exchange Fees for
Fiscal Year 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-116); and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64834 (July 7, 2011), 76 FR 41839 (July 15, 2011)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to PAR Official Fees in Volatility Index Options)
(SR-CBOE-2011-057).
    \6\ See Cboe Options Rules, Chapter VI, Section E which
describes Exchange responsibilities pursuant to the current linkage
plan, the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the requirements
of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed fee for Customer
transactions in XSP is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in
that the proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and
equitable to assess fees for Customer transactions in XSP because the
Exchange currently assesses fees for Customer transactions in other
index products, including other proprietary products. In addition to
this, the Exchange notes that the proposed XSP Customer transaction fee
is less than Customer transaction fees for other index products. To
reiterate the example above, assessment of Customer transaction fees in
most other index products (including other proprietary products like
that of XSP) is $0.18 per contract, as well as $0.25 per contract for
certain MSCI index options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Options Fee Schedule, ``Index Options Rate Table--
All Index Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A and Sector
Indexes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that raising the Customer Large Trade
Discount threshold for XSP is reasonable because customers will still
be receiving a discount for large trades that they would not otherwise
receive. The Exchange believes that notwithstanding the proposed
increase, the Customer Large Trade Discount will continue to
incentivize larger Customer XSP executions. As stated, Customer order
flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which potentially increases order
flow from other market participants. This change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all customers whose large trades
qualify for the Discount will still receive it.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that while the proposed Customer fee
assessed is lower as compared to other market participants \10\ and the
large trade discount in XSP is Customer specific, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee and discount is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because, as described above, Customer order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of
providing preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current
Fee Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees
structures of multiple other exchanges.\11\ The Exchange notes that all
fee amounts applicable to Customers will be applied equally to all
Customers, i.e., all Customers will be assessed the same amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 9. Firms are assessed a transaction fee
between $0.20 and $0.70, depending on the transaction type, and
Market-Makers, as proposed, are assessed a transaction fee of $0.23.
    \11\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Transaction Fees, SPIKES,
which gives preferential Customer treatment for transaction in MIAX
Option's proprietary product, SPIKES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of
the sliding-scale fee structure for Market-Maker transactions in XSP
and, instead, the assessment of the flat-rate fee of $0.23 per contract
for Market-Maker transactions in XSP options, is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposal is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that
the proposed fee change in connection with Market-Maker transactions in
XSP is reasonable and equitable because it better reflects the current
trend in Market-Maker volume in XSP. As stated, in recent months, the
average percentage of volume per Market-Maker in XSP options has
hovered around the lowest two volume threshold tiers (which assess a
transaction fee of $0.23 per contract or $0.17 per contract).
Therefore, the Exchange believes that the change from assessing a
sliding-scale fee to a flat-rate fee of $0.23 is reasonably related to
the overall levels and patterns of Market-Maker market activity.
Moreover, because Market-Maker volume on average has remained within
bottom two tiers, the proposed flat-fee will not significantly impact
or alter the current cost for executions in XSP that Market-Makers
incur today. Additionally, the Exchange notes that various other index
products, including other proprietary products like that of XSP
options, are also excluded from the sliding-scale scale transaction fee
table and assessed a flat-rate fee that is commensurate with

the proposed flat-rate fee assessed for Market-Maker transactions in
XSP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed flat-fee for Market-Maker
transactions in XSP is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will apply equally to all Market-Maker transactions in
XSP, i.e., all Market-Makers will be assessed the same amount. Though
Market-Maker transactions in XSP will be assessed a lower fee than
other market participants,\13\ the Exchange believes that the proposed
fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Market-Makers,
unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations,
including quoting obligations that other market participants do not
have. Further, Market-Makers have added market making and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
For example, Market-Makers have obligations to maintain continuous
markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and to not
make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent
with a course of dealing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee schedule
change to remove PAR Official fees from the fee schedule is equitable
and reasonable because, today, PAR Officials no longer maintain many of
their responsibilities as they did when the Exchange implemented PAR
Official fees in order to help offset the Exchange's costs of providing
PAR Official services (e.g., salaries, etc.).\14\ As a result, the
Exchange has determined that PAR Official fees are no longer necessary
to assist the Exchange in offsetting its costs of providing PAR
Official services. In addition to this, the Exchange believes that
removing PAR Official fees from the fee schedule is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all orders routed through a PAR
Official will no longer be assessed a PAR Official fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on
intramarket competitions that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee
assessed for Customers (as well as the proposed change to the Customer
Large Trade Discount) and Market-Makers in XSP will be assessed equally
to all such participants, respectively. As described above, while
different fees are assessed to different market participants in some
circumstances, these different market participants have different
obligations and different circumstances. For example, Market Makers
have quoting obligations that other market participants do not have,
whereas preferential pricing to Customers is a long-standing options
industry practice which serves to enhance Customer order flow, thereby
attracting Marker-Makers to facilitate tight spreads and trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. In addition to
this, the Exchange notes that it currently assesses fees for Customers
and Market-Maker transactions in other index products, including
proprietary products.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
propose fees assessed and discount apply to an Exchange proprietary
product, which are traded exclusively on the Exchange and the
Exchange's affiliate, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
    In addition to this, the Exchange notes that the proposed change to
remove the PAR Official fees from its fee schedule will not impose an
burden on intramarket or intermarket competition, as it is not intended
as a competitive pricing change, but rather as a change to reflect the
reduction in PAR Officials' responsibilities and the correlated
reduction in revenue necessary to assist the Exchange in compensating
PAR Officials for such responsibilities.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \16\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-032. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit

personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-032 and should be
submitted on or before August 2, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14815 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

		<link href="/css/ehpsite.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
		<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/print.css" type="text/css" media="print" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="EHP-in-Press: RSS feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpinpress" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="EHP-in-Press: RDF feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpinpress" />
		<link rel="service.feed" type="application/atom+xml" title="EHP-in-Press: Atom feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpinpress" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="EHP Correspondence-in-Press: RSS feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehp-correspondence" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="EHP Correspondence-in-Press: RDF feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehp-correspondence" />
		<link rel="service.feed" type="application/atom+xml" title="EHP Correspondence-in-Press: Atom feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehp-correspondence" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Full text: RSS feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehppressreleases" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Full text: RDF feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehppressreleases" />
		<link rel="service.feed" type="application/atom+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - full text: Atom feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehppressreleases" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Summaries: RSS feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprsummary" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Summaries: RDF feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprsummary" />
		<link rel="service.feed" type="application/atom+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Summaries: Atom feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprsummary" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Titles: RSS feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprtitles" />
		<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Titles: RDF feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprtitles" />
		<link rel="service.feed" type="application/atom+xml" title="EHP Press Releases - Titles: Atom feed" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ehpprtitles" />
			<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

		    <meta name="Description" content="EHP 105(6) Article: Woodruff, Location: Main Section of EHP Online" />
		<TITLE>EHP 105(6) Article: Woodruff</TITLE>
		<meta name="Author" content="Tracey J. Woodruff,Jeanne Grillo, Kenneth C. Schoendorf" />	<meta name="KeyWords" content="EHP 105_6_ Article: Woodruff" />

		<form id="search-form" name="search" method="post" accept-charset="iso-8859-1" action="/cgi-bin/simplesearch.pl">

<input id="search-text-input" type="text" name="querystring" size="20" value="" maxlength="1991" />	<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Search" />

<input type="radio" name="querytype" value="author" />	Author	<input type="radio" name="querytype" value="keywords" />	Keyword	<input type="radio" name="querytype" value="title" />	Title	<input name="querytype" type="radio" value="full" checked="checked" />	Full<input type="hidden" name="qp" value="url:http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/ url:http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ url:http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/ url:http://ehpnet2.niehs.nih.gov/" /><input type="hidden" name="col" value="ehp" /><input type="hidden" name="ht" value="0" /><input type="hidden" name="qs" value="" /><input type="hidden" name="qc" value="ehp" /><input type="hidden" name="pw" value="100%" /><input type="hidden" name="ws" value="0" /><input type="hidden" name="la" value="" /><input type="hidden" name="qm" value="0" /><input type="hidden" name="st" value="1" /><input type="hidden" name="nh" value="10" /><input type="hidden" name="lk" value="1" /><input type="hidden" name="rf" value="0" /><input type="hidden" name="oq" value="" /><input type="hidden" name="rq" value="0" /><input type="hidden" name="si" value="1" />

</form>

Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online.  Print issues are available by paid subscription.

Volume 114, Number 3
March 2006

Recent In-Press
PCB-related Alteratio...
     Tabuchi M, et al.
U.S. Environmental Pr...
     Harding AK, et al.
National Workshops fo...
     Sanderson EG, et al.

(More)

Recent Correspondence
Evaluating Beryllium ...
       Kolanz M, et al.
Coal Tar and Paving P...
       Schulte PA
Translocation of Ultr...
       Nemmar A, et al.

(More)

			Teachers: Download EHP Student Edition and Science Lessons for Free!

		Get Instant Updates with EHP RSS Feeds

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 105, Number 6, June 1997

 The Relationship between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States

 Tracey J. Woodruff,1 Jeanne Grillo,2 Kenneth C. Schoendorf2

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460 USA; 2 National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD 20782 USA

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

 Abstract

Recent studies have found associations between particulate air pollution and total and adult mortality. The relationship between particulate air pollution and mortality among infants has not been examined in the United States. This study evaluates the relationship between postneonatal infant mortality and particulate matter in the United States. Our study involved analysis of cohorts consisting of approximately 4 million infants born between 1989 and 1991 in states that report relevant covariates; this included 86 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics-linked birth/infant death records were combined at the MSA level with measurements of particulate matter 10 m or less (PM10) from the EPA's Aerometric Database. Infants were categorized as having high, medium, or low exposures based on tertiles of PM10. Total and cause-specific postneonatal mortality rates were examined using logistic regression to control for demographic and environmental factors. Overall postneonatal mortality rates were 3.1 among infants with low PM10 exposures, 3.5 among infants with medium PM10 exposures, and 3.7 among highly exposed infants. After adjustment for other covariates, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total postneonatal mortality for the high exposure versus the low exposure group was 1.10 (1.04, 1.16). In normal birth weight infants, high PM10 exposure was associated with respiratory causes [OR = 1.40, (1.05, 1.85)] and sudden infant death syndrome [OR = 1.26, (1.14, 1.39)]. For low birth weight babies, high PM10 exposure was associated, but not significantly, with mortality from respiratory causes [OR = 1.18, (0.86, 1.61)]. This study suggests that particulate matter is associated with risk of postneonatal mortality. Continued attention should be paid to air quality to ensure optimal health of infants in the United States. Key words: air pollution, infant mortality, particulate air pollution, postneonatal mortality. Environ Health Perspect 105:608-612 (1997)

Address correspondence to T.J. Woodruff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW (2126), Washington, D.C. 20460 USA.

The authors would like to thank J. Scott Greene and Paul F. Jamason from the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, for providing temperature data.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and they do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Received 8 October 1996; accepted 18 March 1997.

Introduction

Concerns about the effects of particulate matter air pollution on health date back to the historic pollution episodes in London in 1952 when a weather inversion lead to high levels of particulate matter air pollution and subsequent increases in mortality and morbidity (1). Since then, recent investigations of the relationship between air pollution and mortality in the United States have demonstrated an association between particulate air pollution levels and mortality at lower air pollution levels. A number of daily time-series studies have demonstrated an association between short-term exposure to particulate air pollution and mortality (2,3). More recent prospective cohort analyses have also demonstrated an association between long-term exposure to particulate air pollution and mortality (4,5). However, all the studies conducted in the United States have focused on adults. The original investigation in London observed increases in mortality for both adults over 45 years of age and children under the age of 1 year (1). Given this result and the number of studies showing a positive association between mortality and exposure to particulate air pollution in adults in the United States, it is reasonable to hypothesize a similar association might be observed in infants in the United States.

This hypothesis is supported by several factors. First, ecological studies in other countries have found an association between particulate air pollution and infant mortality (6-8); however, it is difficult to apply these results to the United States because particulate matter levels in these countries have typically been much higher than in the United States. Second, the results of previous studies among adults suggest vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly and people with preexisting cardiovascular or respiratory conditions, are more susceptible to effects from exposure to particulate air pollution than the rest of the population (9). Because of their high mortality rates, infants, particularly those born prematurely, may also fall into this group of susceptible individuals. Last, studies have found associations between particulate air pollution and respiratory illness in children (10,11).

Many studies of adults have examined the association of particulate air pollution with overall adult mortality as well as with specific causes of mortality (9,12). However, such an inclusive approach may not be appropriate for an analysis of air quality and mortality among infants. A majority of infant deaths are unlikely to be influenced by air pollution levels because they occur too soon after birth (13) or are due to causes clearly intrinsic to the infant, such as congenital anomalies (14). To focus only on infant deaths that may plausibly be associated with particulate air pollution, we examined the relationship between exposure to particulate air pollution and selected causes of postneonatal mortality in the United States. Postneonatal death (death of an infant over 27 days of age) is thought to be influenced more by the infant's external environment than is mortality earlier in infancy (15). In keeping with the previously demonstrated relationship between particulate air pollution and childhood respiratory illness (10,11), an association between particulate air pollution and postneonatal mortality from respiratory causes can be postulated. Similarly, because several studies have suggested that sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (16,17), a potential association between SIDS and particulate air pollution is plausible.

Daily time-series analyses are commonly used to evaluate the relationship between short-term exposure to particulate air pollution and adult mortality. This method is not appropriate for an analysis of postneonatal mortality and pollution because of the small numbers of infants who die in a specific location over a short period of time. In adults, cohort analyses of specific cities or areas have been used to examine associations between mortality and chronic or long-term exposure to particulate matter. While this general approach may be feasible for a similar analysis among infants, geographically limited cohort analyses will also lack power due to small numbers.

The national-linked birth/infant death records provide a unique database for the examination of particulate air pollution and infant mortality. The birth certificate portion of each record contains individual level information on parental risk factors for infant mortality, while the death certificate portion contains data on the cause and time of death. Thus, potentially important confounders can be controlled for in the evaluation of the relationship between particulate air pollution and infant mortality. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between chronic exposure to particulate air pollution and postneonatal mortality from all causes, from respiratory causes, and from SIDS in the United States.

Methods

In this study, we combined infant mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) with air quality data from the EPA. Information on infant outcome and maternal and infant characteristics was obtained from the NCHS-linked birth/infant death data files for 1989-1991, the most recent period for which those data were available (18). Infants born in California, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Washington were excluded from the analysis because some of those states did not report maternal education and others did not report maternal smoking status on birth certificates for the period of interest. Although those states account for 29.5% of births in the United States, previous research has demonstrated that infants born in many of those states (including California and New York, which contained the majority of excluded births) have similar infant mortality characteristics as the nation as a whole (19). Due to federal confidentiality constraints, NCHS data files do not contain detailed geographic information for infants born in counties with populations less than 100,000; therefore, this study was limited to infants born in counties with populations of at least 100,000. In addition, only the month and year of birth and death are recorded; the exact date of birth or death is not available from the NCHS records.

Particulate matter air pollution data were obtained from the EPA's Aerometric Database. Monitoring data were obtained for all metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that monitored for particulate matter of 10 m or less (PM10). The infant mortality and PM10 files were linked at the MSA level using 1990 Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes common to both files. One hundred and one MSAs from the linked birth/infant death file met the geographic and population inclusion criteria previously mentioned, and 86 of those MSAs were included in the EPA database.

PM10 exposure for each infant was based on PM10 levels in the infant's MSA of residence at the time of birth. For this study, an infant's exposure was considered to be the mean of the PM10 levels for the first 2 months of life. Two months was chosen as the exposure period because all infants in the study had PM10 exposure for the month of birth and at least part of the next month. The alternative, defining exposure as the average of the PM10 levels over an infant's entire lifetime, leads to an overestimate of the influence of PM10 on mortality because of declines in PM10 levels in the United States over time. For instance, two infants born in the same month in the same MSA will have identical exposures for the first 2 months of life. If one of the infants should die in his second month and one should survive infancy, the survivor will have a lower overall exposure because of the decreasing secular trend. Thus, the surviving infant will appear to have a lower exposure, even though the infants had identical exposure up to the first infant's death, resulting in an artificially high estimate of the association between PM10 and mortality.

For categorical analyses, infants were categorized as having low, medium, or high PM10 exposure depending on whether their 2-month mean exposure was in the bottom one-third, middle one-third, or top one-third of the range of exposures. The overall range of infant exposures was 11.9-68.8 g/m3. To minimize the influence of outliers, the top and bottom 1% of exposures were not used in the determination of PM10 exposure category. The resulting low, medium, and high exposure ranges were <28.0, 28.1-40.0, and >40.1 g/m3.

The outcome of interest in this study, postneonatal mortality, was defined as the death of an infant between 1 month and 1 year of age. The postneonatal mortality rate was calculated as the number of postneonatal deaths per 1,000 infants who survived the neonatal period (birth through 1 month). To focus the analysis on deaths that may plausibly be related to particulate matter, our study examined four postneonatal outcomes: 1) all postneonatal deaths; 2) normal birth weight (NBW, >=2,500 grams) SIDS deaths; 3) NBW respiratory deaths; and 4) low birth weight (LBW, <2,500 grams) respiratory deaths. Respiratory deaths are those deaths with a reported underlying cause of death identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Revision 9 (ICD-9), codes 460-519. SIDS deaths are those with an ICD-9 cause of death of 798.0. Mortality rates by birth weight category were examined to test the hypothesis that particulate matter may have a stronger influence among more vulnerable populations, specifically among LBW infants. A control disease category of all other causes of death was also examined.

Postneonatal mortality rates were calculated within each of the three pollution categories for each outcome. Logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounding variables (20,21). These variables were obtained from the birth certificate portion of the NCHS file and include maternal education (<12 years, >=12 years), maternal race (black, white, other), parental marital status, and maternal smoking during pregnancy (no, yes). Separate models were run with PM10 levels entered as a categorical variable and as a continuous variable.

Past studies of factors associated with perinatal outcome have shown a differential effect of demographic characteristics, such as education, on outcome for black infants and white infants (19,22). Accordingly, interaction terms were added to the logistic regression models to assess potential effect modification. Neither substantial nor significant (all p-values >0.2) differential effect by race was observed. Infants with information missing for any of the other variables (e.g., maternal education) were excluded from the analysis. Approximately 7% of infants were excluded because of missing data.

Climate is also a potential confounder in this analysis because temperature may be related to the risk of postneonatal death (SIDS, in particular) and air quality. Monthly temperatures throughout the study for each MSA were obtained from the National Center for Climactic Research, University of Delaware. For each infant, the average temperature during the first 2 months of life (analogous to the calculation of PM10 exposure) was entered into the logistic models.

The date of birth may also have confounded the relationship between mortality and particulate matter in this analysis because both infant mortality and PM10 levels decreased during the study period. To control for this possibility, a variable accounting for each infant's month and year of birth was entered into the logistic models.

Results

A total of almost 4 million infants residing in 86 MSAs were included in this analysis (Table 1). Thirty-six percent of all infants were in the low exposure category, 15% had high PM10 exposure, and the remaining 49% of infants were in the middle exposure category. Infants with high exposure were the most likely to have low maternal education and unmarried parents and to have been exposed to maternal smoking during pregnancy.

Overall postneonatal mortality increased with increasing PM10 levels, from 3.1 in the low pollution category to 3.7 in the high category (Table 2). Postneonatal mortality increased with increasing PM10 exposure for each of the birth weight and cause-specific outcomes examined in this study. The postneonatal SIDS rate among normal birth weight infants with high PM10 exposure was 26% higher than among normal birth weight infants with low exposure. Normal birth weight infants with high PM10 exposure were 45% more likely to die of respiratory causes than normal birth weight infants with low exposure. Respiratory mortality among low birth weight infants was 35% higher in the high exposure group than in the low PM10 exposure group. Conversely, postneonatal mortality from all other causes of death did not consistently increase with increasing PM10 exposure and was only 8% higher among high exposure infants than among low exposure infants.

Adjustment for confounding variables weakened the associations between PM10 exposure and postneonatal mortality, but substantial differences between the high and low exposure groups remained. Table 3 displays the categorical and continuous odds ratios (ORs) for mortality by PM10 level after adjustment for maternal education, marital status, maternal race, maternal smoking during pregnancy, average temperature exposure, and year and month of birth. After adjustment, infants with high levels of PM10 exposure were at approximately 10% higher risk of postneonatal death than were infants with low exposure.

Further categorical analysis by cause of death showed a significant relationship between PM10 level and SIDS among normal birth weight infants. The adjusted ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for infants with medium and high PM10 exposures were 1.09 (1.01-1.17) and 1.26 (1.14-1.39), respectively. Among normal birth weight infants with high PM10 exposure, the adjusted OR for respiratory mortality was 1.40 (1.05-1.85). The adjusted ORs for respiratory death among low birth weight infants showed an increased risk of approximately 18% for infants with high PM10 exposure compared with infants with low exposure, although the 95% CI includes 1.0.

The continuous ORs in Table 3 show the relative change in risk of death associated with a 10 g/m3 increase in PM10 level after adjustment for confounding variables. Overall postneonatal mortality increased by 4% for each 10 g/m3 rise in PM10. SIDS among normal birth weight infants increased by 12% for each 10 g/m3 increase in PM10. Postneonatal respiratory mortality among normal birth weight infants increased 20% per 10g/m3, while postneonatal respiratory mortality among low birth weight infants increased by 5%. No association was observed for other causes.

All continuous and categorical models were also run without maternal smoking, temperature, and timing of birth. The relationships between PM10 exposure and postneonatal mortality in those models were virtually identical to the relationships shown in Table 3 (data not shown).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to concentrate on the relationship between air quality and infant mortality in the United States. This analysis demonstrates an association between PM10 levels and several causes of postneonatal mortality. Specifically, the risk of SIDS among normal birth weight infants and respiratory mortality among normal and low birth weight infants was higher among infants with high PM10 exposure than among those with low exposure, though the adjusted OR for low birth weight respiratory mortality was not statistically significant. The risk of postneonatal mortality from any cause was approximately 10% higher in infants in the high PM10 category than in those in the low PM10 category, after adjustment for potential confounders. It appears that the overall elevated risk is probably due to the association between PM10 level and SIDS and respiratory-related mortality because there was no association with other causes of death.

Previous studies in Taiwan (7) and the Czech Republic (6) have also found an association between particulate air pollution and infant mortality. Bobak and Leon (6) used ecological analysis to evaluate the relationship between annual infant mortality between 1986 and 1988 and long-term exposure to several measures of pollution [PM10, SO2, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)] in the Czech Republic. They found a consistent positive association between PM10 levels and postneonatal infant mortality, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and the other pollutants. The associations with the other pollutants were inconsistent. Knoebel et al. (7) evaluated the relationship between short-term levels of particulate air pollution as measured by visibility and SIDS in Taiwan. They found positive significant associations between SIDS and visibility measured on the day before death and a stronger association with 9 days before death after adjusting for a number of covariates. The PM10 levels in the Czech and Taiwan studies (6,7) were much higher than levels in our analysis [mean of 68.5 in the Czech study (6); values ranged between 36 and 122 g/m3 in the Taiwan study (H. Knoebel, personal communication) versus 31 g/m3 in this analysis], yet all studies find a consistent, positive association between PM10 levels and postneonatal mortality.

While no other study in the United States has examined mortality effects in children, this study is consistent with two similarly designed prospective cohort studies of adult mortality evaluating the effects of long-term exposure to particulate air pollution: the Harvard Six City study (4) and the American Cancer Society study (5). In the Harvard Six City study, Dockery et al. (4) analyzed survival of 8,111 adults followed for 14 years in six cities in the eastern United States. After adjusting for sociodemographic risk factors, the authors found a 27% increased risk for mortality between the cities with the highest and lowest levels of inhalable particulate matter. Similarly, Pope et al. (5) used 7-year survival data between 1982 and 1988 for over half a million adults in 151 U.S. cities, using the American Cancer Society database. After adjusting for sociodemographic risk factors, they found fine particle concentrations measured in the beginning of the study, represented by both sulfates and particles less than 2.5 m, were associated with a 15% and 17% increase in mortality, respectively. Using the results from the logistic model employing a continuous representation of PM10, this study estimated a 25% increase in risk of postneonatal death between infants exposed to the highest and lowest levels of PM10, after adjustment for potential confounding factors. This increased risk is similar to the relative risk estimates observed in the previous two prospective cohort studies. In addition, the Harvard Six City study (4) and the American Cancer Society study (5) found higher associations with cardiopulmonary related causes, which is similar to this study.

The results of this study are also consistent with the current literature on the mortality and morbidity effects associated with particulate matter. In addition to the prospective cohort studies, numerous studies have observed associations between mortality and short-term exposure to PM10 in adults (2,3,12). Analysis by cause of death finds a stronger relationship between PM10 and respiratory-related causes (2,3,12). Also, a number of studies have reported positive associations between respiratory-related morbidity and particulate matter (23-25). In particular, several studies report an association between respiratory effects in children and both short-term and long-term exposure to PM10 (10,11,26).

An intriguing finding of this study is the association between high PM10 levels and SIDS. An association between SIDS and environmental tobacco smoke has been demonstrated previously, and tobacco smoke contains a substantial proportion of particulate matter (27). Further exploration is needed to elucidate the observed associations and clarify clues they might give as to the etiology and prevention of SIDS.

In this study, the strength of association between PM10 exposure and mortality decreased after control for demographic factors and maternal smoking during pregnancy. The logistic models used in the analysis were parsimonious, but included the most important variables associated with infant mortality that are available from the linked birth/infant death file. Similar studies among adults have considered other risk factors such as occupational exposures, body mass index, and alcohol consumption. While those specific factors may not be relevant to an examination of infant mortality, it is possible that additional characteristics of the infant, the parents, or the environment may be confounding the relationships between particulate matter and postneonatal mortality observed in this study. It is important to note, however, that in previous prospective cohort studies, adjustment for additional factors did not significantly alter the observed relationships between particulate air pollution and adult mortality (4,5).

One difference between particulate matter studies among adults and similar studies among children is that the particulate matter levels are more likely to represent a consistent chronic exposure among infants than among adults, who are more liable to have moved during their lifetime. However, this study has the limitation, as do other epidemiological studies of PM10, of only using measured levels to represent ambient concentrations, which do not necessarily represent exposure to an individual. A limited number of studies have been conducted to assess the relationship between monitored levels of PM10 and personal exposures. Studies have found that monitored PM10 levels are highly correlated with levels at specific locations (e.g., between a central monitor and one in the backyard of a home) within the monitored area (2,28,29). Also, PM10 levels are different, but correlated, between indoors and outside (2,28-30). By limiting this study to postneonatal mortality, we hoped to minimize the influence of mortality among infants who never leave the hospital between birth and death and therefore may not have been exposed to the monitored levels of PM10. The inclusion of SIDS should further assure a population of infants that is exposed to the ambient environment because the diagnosis of SIDS is limited to essentially healthy infants who have no medical reason to be confined to the indoors.

There is a high correlation between indoor and outdoor levels of fine particulate matter, defined as particles of 2.5 m or less (PM2.5) (28,29). The relationship between PM2.5 and adult mortality was examined in both the Harvard Six City study (4) and the American Cancer Society study (5), both of which found a significant association between mortality and chronic exposure to fine particles and sulfates. It is possible that PM10 levels in this analysis are a surrogate for fine particles, which includes all particles less than 2.5 m in size that are components of PM10. There are few PM2.5 and sulfate monitoring data available for 1989-1991 so it is not possible to determine if specific components of PM10 account for the associations found in this study.

A number of previous studies have demonstrated a positive association between particulate matter and mortality among adults in the United States. This analysis indicates that particulate matter may also influence an infant's chance of survival. While further examination of this association is needed, the results of this study, combined with results from studies examining air pollution and morbidity among children, suggest that continued attention must be paid to the nation's air quality to ensure the optimal health of infants and children in the United States.

References

1.	Ministry of Public Health. Mortality and Morbidity during the London Fog of December 1952. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects, No. 95. London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1954.

2.	EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/P-95/001aF. Research Triangle Park, NC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996.

3.	Schwartz J. Air pollution and daily mortality: a review and meta-analysis. Environ Res 64:36-52 (1994).

4.	Dockery DW, Pope CA III, Xu X, Spengler J, Ware JH, Fa M, Ferris B, Speizer FF. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. New Engl J Med 329:1753-1759 (1993).

5.	Pope CA III, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Health CW. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:669-674(1995).

6.	Bobak M, Leon DA. Air pollution and infant mortality in the Czech Republic, 1986-88. Lancet 340:1010-1014(1992).

7.	Knobel H, Chen C, Liang K. Sudden infant death syndrome in relation to weather and optimetrically measured air pollution in Taiwan. Pediatrics 96:1106-1110 (1995).

8.	Penna MLF, Duchiade MP. Air pollution and infant mortality from pneumonia in the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 25:47-54 (1991).

9.	Schwartz J. What are people dying of on high air pollution days. Environ Res 64:26-35 (1994).

10.	Pope CA III, Dockery DW. Acute health effects of PM-10 pollution on symptomatic and asymptomatic children. Am Rev Respir Dis 145:1123-1128 (1992).

11.	Schwartz J, Dockery DW, Neas LM, Wypij D, Ware JH, Spengler JD, Koutrakis P, Speizer FE, Ferris BG Jr. Acute effects of summer air pollution on respiratory symptom reporting in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150:1234-1242 (1994).

12.	Pope CA III, Schwartz J, Ransom MR. Daily mortality and PM10 pollution in Utah Valley. Arch Environ Health 47:211-217 (1992).

13.	Hansen H, Kiely M. Importance of the first day death rate in infant mortality. Paidiatr Perinat Epidemiol 6:193-197 (1992).

14.	National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1990, Vol 2, Mortality. Washington, DC:Public Health Service, 1994.

15.	Pharoah POD, Morris JN. Postneonatal mortality. Epidemiol Rev 1:170-183 (1979).

16.	Klonoff-Cohen JS, Edelstein SL, Lefkowitz ES, Srinivasan IP, Kaegi D, Chang JC, Wiley KJ. The effect of passive smoking and tobacco exposure through breast milk on sudden infant death syndrome. JAMA 273:795-798 (1995).

17.	Schoendorf KC, Kiely JL. Relationship of sudden infant death syndrome to maternal smoking during and after pregnancy. Pediatrics 90:905-908 (1992).

18.	National Center for Health Statistics. Linked Birth/Infant Death Data set: 1989, 1990, 1991 Birth Cohorts. Hyattsville, MD:Public Health Service, 1995.

19.	Kleinman JC, Kessel SS. Racial differences in low birth weight. New Engl J Med 317:749-753 (1987).

20.	Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1989.

21.	SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Users Guide, vol 2. Cary, NC:SAS Institute, Inc., 1989.

22.	Kleinman JC, Fingerhut LA, Prager K. Differences in infant mortality by race, nativity status, and other maternal characteristics. Am J Dis Child 145:194-199 (1991).

23.	Burnett R, Dales R, Raizenne M, Krewski D, Summers P, Roberts G, Raad-Young M, Dann T, Brooke J. Effects of low ambient levels of ozone and sulphates on the frequency of respiratory admissions to Ontario hospitals. Environ Res 65:172-194 (1994).

24.	Pope C III. Respiratory hospital admissions associated with PM-10 pollution in Utah, Salt Lake and Cache valleys. Arch Environ Health 46:90-97 (1991).

25.	Schwartz J, Slater D, Timothy VL, Pierson W, Koenig J. Particulate air pollution and hospital emergency room visits for asthma in Seattle. Am Rev Respir Dis 147:826-831 (1993).

26.	Dockery DW, Cunningham J, Damokosh AI, Neas LM, Spengler JD, Koutrakis P, Ware JH, Raizenne M, Speizer FE. Health effects of acid aerosols on North American children: respiratory symptoms. Environ Health Perspect 104: 500-505 (1996).

27.	EPA. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. EPA/600/6-90/006F. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

28.	Ozkaynak H, Xue J, Weker R, Butler D, Spengler J. The Particle TEAM (PTEAM) Study: Analysis of the Data, Vol III [draft final report]. EPA contract no. 68-02-4544. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.

29.	Wallace L. Indoor particles: a review. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 46:98-126 (1996).

30.	Lioy PJ. Assessing total human exposure to contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 24:938-945 (1990).

Last Update: June 16, 1997

| Related EHP Articles |  Purchase This Issue |

						Resources | Call for Papers | Career Opportunities | Buy EHP Publications | Advertising Information |  News Feeds


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40174-40175]
[DOCID:fr11au09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12783-003]

Inglis Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

August 4, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-12783-003.
    c. Date filed: July 22, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Inglis Hydropower, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Inglis Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located at the existing
Inglis Bypass Channel and Spillway on the Withlacoochee River, west of
Lake Rousseau and the Inglis Dam, within the town of Inglis, Levy
County, Florida. No federal lands would be occupied by the proposed
project.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Dean Edwards, P.O. Box 1565, Dover, FL
33527,<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr.
Kevin Edwards, P.O. Box 143, Mayodan, NC 27027,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Adams at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Sec.  4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: September 20, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.''
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed 2.0-megawatt (MW) Inglis Project would operate in a
run-of-river mode by using flows released to maintain the surface
elevation of Lake Rousseau at 27.5 feet mean sea level (msl). Flow
releases are determined by the Southwest Florida Water Management
District (WMD). The proposed powerhouse would be 60-foot-long by 80-
foot-wide by 30-foot-high, and contain three vertical shaft turbines.
The penstock would be 130 feet in length. The project would generate
about 12.3 gigawatt hours (GWH) annually, which would be fed into the
interconnected transmission system via an existing 3.4-mile-long,
12,470-kV transmission line.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at 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,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
Sec.  106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR, at Sec.  800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter: September 2009.
Issue Acceptance Notice and Letter: December 2009.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments: January 2010.
Request Additional Information: March 2010.
Issue Scoping Document 2: March 2010.
Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis: March 2010.
Notice of the availability of the EA: July 2010.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19137 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P