Re: Pb designations modeling comments/questions

Sarah VanderWielen

to:

Mary Portanova

05/07/2010 12:36 PM

Cc:

Andy Chang, Michael Compher, "Hunter,	Jennifer", Randall Robinson

From:	"Sarah VanderWielen"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	To:	Mary Portanova/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

	Cc:	Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Compher/R5/USEPA/US@EPA,
"Hunter,

Jennifer"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randall
Robinson/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Mary,

Below are responses to the questions on the lead modeling submitted for
the Lead NAAQS designations.

Please let Jennifer Hunter know if you have any additional questions (I
will be out of the office until June 2, 2010).

Thanks,

Sarah

Sarah VanderWielen

Meteorologist

Ohio EPA

Division of Air Pollution Control

50 W. Town Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Phone -<PHONE_NUMBER>

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

>>><EMAIL_ADDRESS>5/6/2010 12:13 PM >>>

Sarah, here is some of what we sent to Tyler Fox's group at HQ when they

requested info on how the State designations modeling had been done.

This refers to the Pb designation modeling for Logan and Fulton

Counties.  Perhaps you can address some of the points here.  The intent

of these comments were to address the question, "Was the modeling done

in accordance with App W?"  Ideally, where there is spotty source

information, the modeling should use conservative estimates where

possible, and explain/justify the estimates.  Thanks for rechecking the

source locations; it's good to know that those were just typoes in the

table, not in the model runs.

I've also attached part of the draft TSDs with HQ's comments on the

modeled sources.

Logan Co/Bellefontaine

The Daido area source emission rate was higher than the NEI, but the

source of the data was not identified.

- Ohio used three sources of information regarding emissions: NEI, TRI
and Ohio's FER (Fee emissions report).  Typically the FER is used to
populate the NEI; however we have found that post FER reporting, changes
have been made for unknown reasons. Ohio worked extensively with the
companies, USEPA (Motria) and others to develop accurate numbers for
each facility.  When necessary Ohio submitted corrections to USEPA to
these numbers (e.g., if the NEI was too high).  But in the end, the
analysis of who should receive a monitor, who should be modeled for the
need, or who was out was based solely on the worst case emissions. And
subsequently, all modeling conducted was based again on the worst case
numbers.  In some cases when we began working with the individual
companies that were to be modeled and requesting emissions rate/stack
heights, etc.; rates would not always match the total actual TPY.
Because of the tight time frame for submittal; Ohio chose not to spend
more time working out the details of the rates if they were
overestimating emissions.  Ohio felt this would result in a more
conservative approach that would result in a larger boundary if
anything.  It should be noted that the modeled plume boundary was
extensively smaller than the boundary requested.

Three other Pb sources were identified.  One was modeled as an area

source because the State believed its lead emissions come from an area

source.  Actual source info was not provided.  Building data was used as

the area source size.  The modeled emission rate matched the tpy data of

the 2005 NEI and 2005 TRI.

-Quincy: the vast majority of lead emissions (which are minor in
themselves from this facility which is located nearly 12 miles west of
Daido) are fugitive (>95%). The fugitive sources are :

The other much more minor source of lead is from the following:

Which is controlled by a fabric filter baghouse.  It should also be
noted that Quincy is "inactive" as of 3/5/10.  They have chosen not to
permanently shutdown but before resuming operations or selling the
company they would need to re-contact Ohio EPA.

The other two sources (two Honda facilities) were modeled as single

point sources.  Ohio had stack information for the lead-emitting sources

at one facility.  This information was averaged to create a single point

source.  Analysis gave no information on the actual stacks or how the

averaging was done.  The other facility did not provide stack

information to Ohio, so the stack data for the other Honda facility was

used.  The analysis provides no further justification for this.  (See

attachment for HQ comments re the source information given in NEI.)

Ohio was relying on Ohio's own internal databases and direct contact
with the facilities for emission source information. Ohio did not
realize stack information was available in the NEI. Recently reported
information shows that for the Honda transmission company the stack is
45' (NEI showed 42) and account for about 54% of the NEI emssions
(remaining fugitive). For the Honda East Liberty plant the stacks are
between 85-90 (NEI showed 70) and account for about 27% of the NEI
emissions.    Ohio used 88 ft as the stack height for both facilities
because that was the average of the East Liberty stacks for which we had
available information at that time.   Honda Transmissions is about 10
miles NW of Daido while Honda East Liberty is about 10 miles East.
Winds are predominantly out of the SW.  Given the distance, wind pattern
and low emissions of the two Honda sources, it is extremely unlikely any
changes to stack heights would change any impact, also considering the
offseting affect of applying 75% of the Honda East Liberty emissions as
fugitive area source emissions.

Were Pb emission rates also averaged?

No the lead emissions were not averaged.  The total reported amount by
Honda was modeled  (0.0075 tpy)

No information was given about land use characterizations besides "one

sector, four seasons."  Did this modeling use the same AERSURFACE run as

in the monitor siting work, and was it the corrected AERSURFACE run, if

it was one where R5 had identified an issue during the monitor siting

process?  What year or years of met data were used?

AERSURFACE was run using one sector, four seasons for Logan County.  The
same AERSURFACE file was used in the monitor siting analysis.  Met data
was from 1984-1988.

200m receptor spacing is less dense than recommended.  (If the selected

boundaries were well beyond the hot spot areas, receptor spacing might

not be a big issue in the case of designations, but there was no

discussion of why 100m resolution was not used or not considered

necessary.)

Ohio feels that 200m spacing, although less dense than recommended, was
adequate to model the maximum impact from these facilities.  When
reviewing the modeled results, it appears that Daido contributed 99.98%
of the maximum modeled concentration.  The next largest contribution was
from Quincy Casting which was 0.05% of the maximum modeled
concentration.  Both Honda plants had little to no impact on the maximum
modeled concentration.

As mentioned above, Ohio was very conservative in expanding its boundary
beyond the impact area.  From a big picture perspective - the only other
sources of lead in the county are E and NW (two Honda - recall also they
are 50% or more fugitive) at 0.0075 TPY each and a fugitive area source
(Quincy) at 0.035 TPY while Daido was modeled at 0.121 TPY and Daido no
longer operates.  A larger area need not be part of the boundary.  The
entire county is comprised of four facilities emitting lead- one
permanently shutdown, one idle and two with 0.0075 TPY emissions each.
Based on the monitor at Daido the last 3-month violation was in May
2007.  We have seen a drop in monitor values since the June shutdown.
Here are the 3-month averages from June to October of 2009:

Here is June to October of 2008, while still operating

If this trend continues through May 2010 (the end of this month) we will
have three complete years of no violations, albeit they aren't calendar
years.  If there continues to be any violations in this area it is
likely a result of lead entrained in the dirt.

Background concentrations were not included.   Are there monitors that

could have provided background concentrations?  (Local monitoring data

was used in the analysis, but in a different way.)

-No we do not have background lead monitors.   Background values were
not included because all lead sources in the are were included in the
modeled inventory.   And also - we asked USEPA for guidance with respect
to this and were told to set the background at 0.

   Fulton Co/Delta

Three other sources (other than Bunting Bearing) were included in the

modeling.  They were modeled as single point sources using 2005 NEI and

2005 TRI emissions.  Stack parameters were averaged for two facilities.

Need some explanation of the stack parameter averaging.  There was no

stack information for the fourth facility, so Bunting Bearing stack

parameters, deemed to be the most conservative, were used for this

facility.  (conservative is good...no NEI source info available?)  Were

fugitives considered?  (See also HQ comments in attachment.)

Northstar - West 2 miles - stack 89' (NEI all emissions stack)

Multicast - West (slightly south) 7.5 miles, stack 48' (emissions from
stack and fugitive are about 50/50 in the NEI)

Sauder - SW over 16 miles - 2 are 80' stacks accounting for 90% of
emissions and one 40' stack.

Upon review, it was discovered that a mistake was made when converting
the latitude and longitude into UTMs for Sauder.  It is believe that
this error occured because this modeling includes some sources in UTM
zone 16 and some in UTM zone 17.  The inventory was converted to a
single zone so that modeling can be preformed.  As a result of this
error, Sauder was actually modeled much closer to the Bunting Bearings
facility, and thus the monitor itself.  Because this source was moved
closer to the monitor, it should be considered a conservative modeling
approach.  Even with Sauder moving closer to the monitor, it still
showed very little modeled impact.

Emissions from Multicast and Sauder are inconsequential considering
their distance and low levels; however all emissions were modeled as
stack so as to provide the most conservative estimate of potential
impact (fugitive lead emissions are less likely to transport such great
distances and we had no record (just like the NEI) of fugitive sources).
 Northstar emissions were modeled at about 1/2 that of Bunting and all
stack (fugitive emissions added into the stack) - this is conservative
as if they were modeled as fugitive they would have even less
opportunity to be transported east (winds predominantly out of the SW).

Were Pb emission rates averaged?

No, the emission rates were not averaged.  The maximum emission rates
reported were modeled for each facility.

Same question about the surface characteristics and met data.

AERSURFACE was run using one sector, four seasons for Fulton County.
The same AERSURFACE file was used in the monitor siting analysis.   Met
data was from 1984-1988.

Same comment on the receptor resolution, which in this case was 150m.

Ohio feels that 150m spacing, although less dense than recommended, was
adequate to model the maximum impact from these facilities. When
reviewing the modeled results, it appears that Bunting Bearing
contributed 99.6% of the maximum modeled concentration.  The next
largest contribution was from Sauder which was 0.66% of the maximum
modeled concentration.  Northstar and Multicast had little to no impact
on the maximum modeled concentration.

Same comment on the background.

-No we do not have background lead monitors.   Background values were
not included because all lead sources in the are were included in the
modeled inventory.   And also - we asked USEPA for guidance with respect
to this and were told to set the background at 0.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65389-65390]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-OAR-2019-0631; FRL-10002-74-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Regional Haze Regulations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Renewal of the ICR for the
Regional Haze Regulations'' (EPA ICR No. 2540.03, OMB Control No. 2060-
0704) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before
doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0631, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the Web, Cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will not be placed on the internet but
may be viewed, with prior arrangement, at the EPA Docket Center.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA William Jefferson Clinton
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Stein, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, mail code C539-
04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709;

telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's regional haze rule, for the time period between August 31,
2020, and August 31, 2023, and renews the previous ICR. The regional
haze rule codified at 40 CFR parts 308 and 309, as authorized by
sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act, requires states to develop
implementation plans to protect visibility in 156 federally protected
Class I areas. Tribes may choose to develop implementation plans. For
this time period, states will primarily be developing and submitting
periodic comprehensive implementation plan revisions to comply with the
regulations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are state, local and tribal air quality agencies, regional
planning organizations and facilities potentially regulated under the
Regional Haze Rule.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory [see 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) and (g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)].
    Estimated number of respondents: 52 (total); 52 state agencies.
    Frequency of response: Approximately every 5 years.
    Total estimated burden: 38,255 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,050,007 (per year). There are no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is increase of 24,945 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase in burden reflects changes in labor
rates and changes in the activities conducted due to the normal
progression of the program, especially the fact that states will be
working on and submitting periodic comprehensive State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions. There are 52 SIP revisions due by July 31, 2021.

    Dated: November 22, 2019.
Juan Santiago,
Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-25810 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 14829]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-77]

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

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, April
2, 2009 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), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
April 2, 2009 will be:
    Institution of an injunctive action; institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; adjudicatory
matters; 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:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 26, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7228 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]


NCS Herald Cohort Study Instrument # 12 Partner ( enrolled preconception) Questionnaire Pregnancy First Trimester Home Visit Eligibility: All partners enrolled while woman was not pregnant but became pregnant Mode of administration: Interviewer, home visit 8/ 4/ 2005 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Dr. Pauline Mendola, US EPA, MD 58A, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. E mail: mendola. pauline@ epa. gov. Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

1 PRELOADED DATA:

Today's date Language of interview ( English/ Spanish)

Female Name Female Address and Phone Spouse/ Partner's Name Spouse/ Partner's Address and Phone Marital status QUESTIONNAIRE: Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

2 Occupation ( Update)

1. In your last interview on [ FILL DATE], you reported that you were ( FILL: not a / a full time / a parttime student. Is this still correct?

1 YES

SKIP TO Q4 2 NO 2. Are you now a student full or part time?

1 YES, FULL TIME 2 YES, PART TIME 3 NO, NOT A STUDENT

SKIP TO Q4 3. What type of school are you currently attending?

1 HIGH SCHOOL 2 TECHNICAL SCHOOL 3 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY 4 GRADUATE SCHOOL 5 PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL ( FOR EXAMPLE, MEDICAL SCHOOL) 6 OTHER ( SPECIFY)_________________

4. In your last interview on [ FILL DATE], you reported that you were ( FILL EMPLOYMENT). Is this still correct?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q5 [ PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTIONS] Q3= YES, STILL WORKING

SKIP TO Q6 Q3= YES, STILL LOOKING FOR WORK

GO TO NEXT MODULE Q3= YES, STILL NOT WORKING

GO TO NEXT MODULE 5. Are you currently

[ ONLY DISPLAY THE OPTIONS NOT SELECTED IN PREVIOUS INTERVIEW] 1 Working at a job or business,

SKIP TO PARAGRAPH BEFORE Q7 2 Looking for work, or

GO TO NEXT MODULE 3 Not working at a job or business?

GO TO NEXT MODULE 6. Did you start work at any jobs since [ FILL DATE]?

1 YES 2 NO

GO TO NEXT MODULE Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

3 Please tell me about the jobs you've had since your last interview, starting with the ( FILL: current/ most recent/ next) one.

7. On what date did you start this job?

MM/ DD/ YYYY 8. On what date did you stop working at this job?

MM/ DD/ YYYY 1 = STILL EMPLOYED 9. What kind of business or industry ( FILL: is/ was) this? ( For example: TV and radio management, retail shoe store, state labor department, farm.)

_________________________________ ENTER NAME OF BUSINESS, JOB, OR INDUSTRY 10. What kind of work ( FILL: are/ were) you doing? ( For example: farming, mail clerk, computer specialist.)

_________________________________ ENTER NAME OF OCCUPATION 11. How many hours a week ( FILL: do/ did) you usually work at this job?

____ HOURS 12. ( FILL: Do/ Did) you do shift work for this job?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q14 13. ( FILL: Does/ Did) this include the night shift?

1 YES 2 NO 14. Did you have any other jobs since [ FILL DATE]?

1 YES [ REPEAT Q7 Q13 FOR UP TO 3 JOBS] 2 NO

GO TO NEXT MODULE { END OF OCCUPATION MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

4 Chemical Exposures ( Update)

Now I'm going to ask you about chemicals you may have used at work, at home, or for any hobbies.

1. Last time you said you were { FILL: not exposed to any of these chemicals / exposed to [ DISPLAY LIST OF EXPOSURES REPORTED IN PREVIOUS VISIT]}. Is this still correct? ( HAND SHOW CARD TO RESPONDENT AND READ THE LETTER CORRESPONDING TO EACH PREVIOUS EXPOSURE)

1 YES

IF NO PREVIOUS EXPOSURES, SKIP TO END 2 NO 2. [ IF Q1= 1, ASK:] Are you currently also exposed to any of the following chemicals? [ IF Q1= 2, ASK:] Which of the following chemicals are you currently exposed to?

[ IF Q1= 1, DISPLAY ONLY THOSE EXPOSURES NOT PREVIOUSLY REPORTED. IF Q1= 2, DISPLAY ALL EXPOSURES]

YES NO

SKIP TO NEXT EXPOSURE 3. How often are you exposed to [ INSERT EXPOSURE] ? Would you say. . .

4. Did the exposure occur while you were at work?

2. Currently Exposed Yes = 01 No = 02 3. Frequency 1 = Daily 2 = 2 3/ week 3 = 1/ week 4 = 1/ month 5 = < 1/ month 4. At work Yes = 01 No = 02 A. Fuels, solvents, dry cleaning fluids, degreasers, or adhesives B. Lead, including paints with lead in them C. Fumes or gases ( e. g., nitrous oxide, ethylene oxide, anesthetic gases) D. Radiation ( e. g., fluoroscopy, radioisotopes, highintensity microwaves, x rays) E. Mercury F. Metal fumes or particles G. Pesticides that you've mixed or applied H. Paints, strippers, or varnishes I. Hair and nail products ( e. g, hair dye, bleach, hair relaxer, nail polish and remover) J. Cleaning products ( e. g., oven cleaner, disinfectant, carpet cleaner, bleach) K. Carbon black from copying machines L. Coal or coal products from hot asphalt, tar, or roofing material { END OF CHEMICAL EXPOSURES MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

5 Personal Medical History ( Update)

Now I'd like to ask you about any changes to your general health.

1. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], have you developed any of the following health problems? ( CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

[ CAPI: ONLY DISPLAY ITEMS = NO FOR LAST INTERVIEW]

1 High blood pressure or hypertension 2 High blood sugar or diabetes 3 High cholesterol 4 Anemia ( poor blood, low iron) 5 Heart problems 6 Hayfever or allergy 7 Skin allergy or eczema 8 Asthma IF Q1 = 8, ASK Q2 4 ELSE, SKIP TO Q5 2. Did a doctor or other medical provider tell you that you have asthma?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q5 3. Have you used any inhalers or taken any pills for asthma or wheezing or whistling in your chest?

1 YES 2 NO 4. Have you ever gone to an emergency room or stayed overnight in a hospital for your asthma?

1 YES 2 NO 5. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], have you been diagnosed with any other serious illnesses that I haven't asked about?

1 YES 2 NO

GO TO NEXT MODULE 5a. What were those illnesses? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

_______________________

6. Since [ FILL DATE], have you been hospitalized for any reason?

1 YES 2 NO

GO TO NEXT MODULE Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

6 6a. Why were you hospitalized? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

__________________________

{ END OF PERSONAL MEDICAL HISTORY MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

7 Feelings about pregnancy ( Full)

The next questions are about the time before your { FILL: wife / partner} got pregnant.

1. Which of the following statements best describes you during the 3 months before your { FILL: wife / partner} got pregnant?

1 I wanted her to get pregnant 2 I partly wanted her to get pregnant and partly wanted her not to get pregnant 3 I didn't care one way or the other whether she got pregnant 4 I didn't especially want her to get pregnant 5 I wanted very much for her not to get pregnant 2. How did you feel when you found out your { FILL: wife / partner} was pregnant? Were you   1 Very unhappy 2 Unhappy 3 Not sure 4 Happy 5 Very happy { END OF PREGNANCY FEELINGS MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

8 Alcohol ( update)

The next few questions are about alcohol consumption. A " drink" is a can or bottle of beer, a glass of wine or a wine cooler, a shot of liquor, or a mixed drink with liquor in it. We are not asking about times when you only had a sip or two from a drink.

1. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], have you had any alcoholic drinks?

1 YES 2 NO

GO TO NEXT MODULE 2. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], how many alcoholic drinks did you have in an average week? Would you say

1 Less than 1 drink a week, 2 1 to 3 drinks a week, 3 4 to 6 drinks a week, 4 7 to 13 drinks a week, or 5 14 drinks or more a week?

3. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], how many times did you drink 5 alcoholic drinks or more in one sitting? Would you say

1 Never, 2 1 time, 3 2 or 3 times, 4 4 or 5 times, or 5 6 or more times?

{ END OF ALCOHOL MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

9 Tobacco ( update)

These next questions are about your use of tobacco products. This includes cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff, cigars, and pipe tobacco.

1. Since your last interview on [ FILL DATE], have you used snuff, dip, or chewing tobacco, even once?

1 YES 2 NO 2. Since your last interview, have you smoked a cigar or tobacco pipe, even once?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q3 2a. How often have you smoked cigars or tobacco pipes since your last interview?

_____ NUMBER OF TIMES ENTER UNIT 1 DAY 2 WEEK 3 MONTH [ IF SMOKER FROM PREVIOUS INTERVIEW, ASK Q3 Q4 ] [ IF NON SMOKER IN PREVIOUS INTERVIEW, SKIP TO Q5 ] 3. Do you still smoke cigarettes?

1 YES

SKIP TO Q6 2 NO 4. When did you stop smoking?

MM/ YYYY

SKIP TO Q7 5. In your last interview you reported that you were not smoking cigarettes. Are you currently smoking cigarettes now?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q7 6. How many cigarettes do you smoke on an average day now? Would you say

1 Less than 1 cigarette per day, 2 1 to 5 cigarettes, 3 6 to 10 cigarettes, 4 11 to 20 cigarettes, 5 21 to 40 cigarettes, or 6 41 cigarettes or more? Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

10 7. In your last interview on [ FILL DATE], you reported that there were [ FILL #] cigarette smokers who lived in your home not including yourself. Is this still correct?

1 YES

SKIP TO Q9 2 NO 8. Not including yourself, how many cigarette smokers live in your home now?

_____

9. About how many hours per day are you in the same room with someone who is smoking cigarettes, cigars, or tobacco pipes?

_____ Hours 999 Less than 1 hour a day { END OF TOBACCO MODULE} Partner Pregnancy 1 ( Instrument # 12)

11 Acceptability ( To be administered at the end of the home visit)

This study will be able to answer health questions best if we are able to keep people involved in the study. To do this, we would like to get some feedback from you about the study overall and this visit today to help improve the study in the future.

1. Was participating in the visit today convenient for you?

1 YES

SKIP TO Q3 2 NO 2. Did you have to take time off from work to have this interview today?

1 YES 2 NO 3. Did you need to find childcare to have this interview today?

1 YES 2 NO 4. Were there any other major obstacles for you to have this interview today?

1 YES 2 NO

SKIP TO Q6 5. What were they? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

____________________________

6. Is there anything that you especially like about participating in this study? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

____________________________

7. Is there anything you especially dislike about participating in this study? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

____________________________

8. Finally, do you have any recommendations as to what we could do differently in the overall study or in these interviews? ( ENTER VERBATIM)

____________________________

{ END OF ACCEPTABILITY MODULE}


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95719-95721]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79642; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 123D--
Equities and the Listed Company Manual

December 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 13, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123D--Equities and the Listed
Company Manual to eliminate the requirement for Floor Official approval
for halts in trading. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123D--Equities and the Company
Guide to eliminate the requirement for Floor Official \4\ approval
before halting trading in a security. The Exchange believes that in
today's trading environment, the requirement for Floor Official
approval before halting trading in a security is unnecessary and
duplicative of Exchange obligations to assess whether to halt trading
in a security under Section 402 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Floor Official'' encompasses Floor Governor, Floor
Official, Executive Floor Governor and Senior Floor Governor, as
their responsibilities are currently assigned in connection with
trading halts. See also Rules 46--Equities and 46A--Equities
defining Floor Governor, Floor Official, and Executive Floor
Governor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 123D(d)--Equities provides that once trading has
commenced, trading may only be halted with the approval of a Floor
Governor or two Floor Officials and that an Executive Floor Governor,
or in their absence a Senior Floor Governor, should be consulted if it
is felt that trading should be halted in a bank or brokerage stock due
to a potential misperception regarding the company's financial
viability.\5\ The rule further provides that if a listed company
notifies the Exchange in advance of publication concerning news which
might have a substantial market impact, the Exchange should advise an
Executive Floor Governor or Floor Governor, or in their absence, a
Floor Official, and specifies procedures for Floor Governors to
overrule the Exchange's determination that a security should be halted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules 46--Equities and 46A--Equities (defining the terms
Floor Official, Senior Floor Official, Executive Floor Official,
Floor Governor, and Executive Floor Governor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commensurate with the evolution of the equities markets and trading
on the Exchange towards more automated processes, the procedures and
situations requiring approvals by Floor Officials have also evolved.
For example, the Exchange previously eliminated the ability of a Floor
broker to seek an exception to Rule 122--Equities requirements if Floor
Official permission is obtained.\6\ In connection with trading halts,
the Exchange is responsible for determining whether to halt trading in
a security under Section 402 of the Company Guide. Thus, requiring
Floor Official approval before a trading halt can be invoked is an
unnecessary pro forma step rather than a substantive requirement.
Moreover, obtaining Floor Governor approval adds an extra manual step
to the process, which could impede the timely dissemination of a
trading halt. Finally, given market fragmentation and highly automated
equities trading environment, the Exchange does not believe that Floor
Governors, who do not have contact with the listed company, should be
in a position to override an Exchange determination to halt trading in
a security. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule
123D(d)--Equities in its entirety as unnecessary and duplicative of
existing Exchange obligations specified in the Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67346 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40671 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-15) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change amending
certain Exchange rules related to floor official duties and
responsibilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make a related change to Section 402
of the Company Guide to delete a reference to Rule 123D--Equities that
would be rendered obsolete by the proposed deletion of Rule 123D(d)--
Equities. In addition, the Exchange also proposes to make a related
change to Section 404 of the Company Guide to delete a reference to a
consultation with trading floor officials that would be rendered
obsolete by the proposed deletion of Rule 123D(d)--Equities. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to re-letter the remaining subsections
of Rule 123D--Equities to account for the deletion of Rule 123D(d)--
Equities.
    The Exchange proposes to make a related change to eliminate the
requirement in Rule 123D(e)--Equities that an ``Equipment Changeover''
halt in trading requires the approval of a Floor Governor or two Floor
Officials as such approval is no longer necessary. An Equipment
Changeover halt is a non-regulatory halt condition that only halts
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that if circumstances
arise warranting an Equipment Changeover halt, obtaining Floor Official
approval before halting trading adds an unnecessary step that is no
longer needed in today's automated markets.
    Because of the procedural changes associated with the proposed rule

changes, the Exchange proposes to announce the eliminations via Trader
Update and anticipates implementing the changes in the first quarter of
2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that they are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes support the
objectives of the Act by amending duties and responsibilities once
assigned to Floor Officials to better comport with the Exchange's
current regulatory structure and to reflect the changing technology and
development of its automated systems. Specifically, eliminating the
unnecessary step of obtaining Floor Official approval in connection
with trading halts would remove impediments to and perfect a national
market system by streamlining and simplifying functionality and
complexity in connection with trading halts. The Exchange believes that
streamlining the procedures and eliminating unnecessary Floor Official
approval requirements would be consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in
fact would benefit from the removal of unnecessary functionality. The
Exchange also believes that eliminating Floor Official approval would
benefit investors by adding transparency and clarity to the Exchange's
rules.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of the reference
to Rule 123D--Equities in Section 402 of the Company Guide is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
reference is obsolete. The Exchange believes that the proposed deletion
of the reference to a consultation with trading floor officials in
Section 404 of the Company Guide is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the reference is obsolete. The proposed
changes would result in the removal of obsolete text from the Company
Guide and therefore add greater clarity to the Company Guide regarding
halts in trading.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed re-lettering of the
remaining subsections of Rule 123D--Equities is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change would add
greater clarity to the Exchange's rule book.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would streamline
functionality, eliminate an unnecessary step, and streamline forms,
thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to
understand and navigate.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEMKT-2016-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-118. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal

identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-118 and should be submitted
on or before January 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31304 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


8/ 126/ 05 reg text on RFP baseline reg text ( d) What is the baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans? ( 1) A baseline emissions inventory is required for the RFP plan required under this section. ( 2) The baseline emissions inventory shall be determined at the time of designation for the 8 hour NAAQS and shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under the provisions of subpart A of this part or a more recent alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the State demonstrates that the baseline inventory meets the CAA provisions for RFP and demonstrates why the inventory required under subpart A of this part would be impracticable to use. sprovides a rationale for using an alternative baseline year.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47504]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-468-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Proposed
Marshall County Mine Panel 18w Project; Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

    On June 30, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP filed an
application in Docket No. CP17-468-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities. The proposed project is known as the as Marshall County
Mine Panel 18W Project (Project), and would excavate and elevate
sections of four existing mainline pipelines to minimize and monitor
potential strains on the pipelines due to anticipated longwall mining
activities.
    On July 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--December 21, 2017
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--March 21, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Texas Eastern proposes to excavate and elevate 1.6-mile-long
sections each of its Line 10, Line 15, Line 30, and a 1.5-mile-long
section of its Line 25 to minimize and monitor potential strains on the
pipelines due to anticipated longwall mining activities of Marshall
Coal. Concurrent with pipeline elevation, portions of two of the lines,
Lines 10 and 15, would be replaced with new pipe. Texas Eastern will
also perform maintenance activities on sections of Lines 25 and 30. The
four mainline sections will be returned to natural gas service while
remaining elevated using sandbags and skids during the longwall mining
activities and potential ground subsidence. Once the mining-induced
subsidence and the 2017-2018 heating season have both ended, the two
sections of pipeline located within wetlands will be removed and the
four elevated pipeline sections will be re-installed belowground,
hydrostatically tested, and placed back into service.

Background

    On July 24, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Marshall County
Mine Panel 18W Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. The Commission did not received any
comments in response to the NOI.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-468), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22002 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3699-3701]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01071]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74085; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to CDS Pricing
Policy

January 16, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On November 24, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2014-20 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 9, 2014.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed change.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73731 (Dec. 3, 2014),
79 FR 73126 (Dec. 9, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe is proposing this change to revise the ICE Clear
Europe CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (``CDS Pricing Policy'')
to incorporate enhancements to its price discovery process. The
revisions do not require any changes to ICE Clear Europe's Clearing
Rules or Procedures.
    According to ICE Clear Europe, it currently uses a ``cross and
lock'' algorithm as part of its price discovery process for CDS
Contracts. As described by ICE Clear Europe, under this algorithm, bids
and offers derived from Clearing Member submissions are matched by
sorting them from highest to lowest and lowest to highest levels,
respectively. This sorting process pairs the Clearing Member submitting
the highest bid price with the Clearing Member submitting the lowest
offer price, the Clearing Member submitting the second highest bid
price with the Clearing Member submitting the second-lowest offer
price, and so on. The algorithm then identifies crossed and/or locked
pairs (or ``markets''). Crossed markets are the Clearing Member pairs
generated by the sorting process for which the bid price of one
Clearing Member is above the offer price of the matched Clearing
Member. Locked

markets are the Clearing Member pairs where the bid and the offer are
equal. The mid-point of the bid and offer of the first non-crossed,
non-locked matched market is the final end-of-day level (with
additional steps taken to remove off-market submissions from
influencing the final level). As stated by ICE Clear Europe, this
process captures the market dynamics of trading; however, final pricing
levels are ultimately determined by a single bid and a single offer,
which results in the ability for one submission to influence the
outcome.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes enhancements to this methodology to
improve the consistency of prices and reduce the sensitivity of the
final end-of-day level to a single Clearing Member's submission. ICE
Clear Europe proposes that, under the new ``cross and lock''
methodology, the average of the mid-points of all non-crossed, non-
locked matched markets for which the difference between the matched
market bid and matched market offer is less than or equal to one bid-
offer width is used as the final level (with additional steps taken to
remove off-market submissions from influencing the final level).
According to ICE Clear Europe, this approach would make end-of-day
price determinations less sensitive to outlying submissions.
    In addition, ICE Clear Europe proposes a clarification to the
calculation of a Clearing Member's open interest for purposes of the
end-of-day price submission process to take into account the aggregate
of both house and client positions carried by the Clearing Member. ICE
Clear Europe also proposes revisions to the CDS Pricing Policy to
correct the minimum number of Clearing Members that need to have open
interest in a particular instrument; this change, as stated by ICE
Clear Europe, conforms to current practice by the Clearing House.
    ICE Clear Europe further proposes revisions to clarify that
notional limits for firm trades that may be assigned to Clearing
Members as a result of the end-of-day price submission process will be
established at risk sub-factor and sector levels, and to clarify the
sequencing of firm trades for determining breaches of those limits,
including accounting for the applicable risk sub-factor and addressing
sequencing within a particular instrument that is part of a particular
risk sub-factor, if necessary.
    Additionally, ICE Clear Europe proposes amendments to certain
requirements applicable to the unwinding of firm trades entered into by
Clearing Members. ICE Clear Europe states that its current policy does
not require firm trades to be maintained for any particular period of
time, but it requires Clearing Members that elect to unwind a firm
trade to do so at the then-current market price. ICE Clear Europe
contends that there are practical difficulties with objectively
determining whether an unwind transaction was executed at the then-
current market price and therefore this requirement can be difficult to
enforce. ICE Clear Europe proposes revising the policy to replace the
requirement that unwinds be executed at the then-current market price
with the requirement that any unwind be executed in a competitive
manner. Further, ICE Clear Europe proposes adding the requirement that,
upon request, Clearing Members be able to demonstrate to the Clearing
House's reasonable satisfaction that such unwind transaction was
executed in a competitive manner. ICE Clear Europe proposes adding a
non-exclusive list of examples of how Clearing Members may be able to
demonstrate competitive execution of unwind transactions. Such examples
would include: (i) Execution on an available trading venue; (ii)
multiple dealer quotes received and execution of the unwind transaction
at the best quoted price; or (iii) placement of the unwind transaction
with an interdealer broker with price terms and instructions
commensurate with a competitive execution.
    In addition, ICE Clear Europe proposes amendments to make certain
clarifications with respect to permissible reversing transactions with
respect to firm trades and the manner in which the Clearing House
designates that actively traded benchmark instruments are not eligible
for reversing transactions.
    Furthermore, ICE Clear Europe proposes certain other conforming
changes to the CDS Pricing Policy as a consequence of a prior rule
change.\4\ Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes adding references to
risk sub-factors (as that term is described in the CDS Risk Policy)
throughout the CDS Pricing Policy, as well as conforming changes to
various references to risk factors. Finally, ICE Clear Europe proposes
various non-substantive drafting clarifications throughout the CDS
Pricing Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-73156 (Sept. 19, 2014), 79
FR 57629 (Sept. 25, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. The proposed revisions to the ``cross and lock''
methodology are expected to reduce the sensitivity of the final price
level to a single Clearing Member's submission, resulting in more
consistent day-over-day end-of-day levels. Furthermore, the proposed
revisions that would require Clearing Members to execute unwinds in a
competitive manner and, upon request, demonstrate to ICE Clear Europe's
reasonable satisfaction that the Clearing Member complied with this
requirement, are expected to make the CDS Pricing Policy more readily
enforceable, while maintaining the incentive for Clearing Members to
provide accurate price submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe's clarifications concerning (1) the referencing of
risk sub-factors, including the clarifications concerning the notional
limits applicable to firm trades, (2) permissible reversing
transactions and (3) calculations of a Clearing Member's open interest
each clarify or conform the text of the CDS Pricing Policy in
accordance with ICE Clear Europe's existing practice. All other
revisions proposed by ICE Clear Europe as a result of this proposed
rule change are conforming changes to other rule changes previously
filed by ICE Clear Europe. The proposed rule change is therefore
reasonably expected to provide a pricing methodology that more
accurately reflects the market level and existing practice. The
proposed rule change is also reasonably expected to be more readily
enforceable and to enhance incentives for Clearing Members to provide
accurate pricing information. As such, the Commission believes that the
changes are designed to promote the prompt and accurate settlement of
securities and derivatives transactions, and, therefore, are consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to

ICE Clear Europe, in particular, Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-20) be,
and hereby is, approved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01071 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14399-14400]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05537]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0114]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Pontchartrain, Between
Jefferson and St. Tammany Parishes, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the draws of bascule span of the
Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway across Lake
Pontchartrain between Metairie, Jefferson Parish and Mandeville, St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This deviation allows the draws of the
bridge to remain closed to navigation for six weeks to allow for the
replacement of electrical parts of the bridge. This deviation is
necessary to provide for the continued safe operation of the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5:30 a.m. on Monday March 24,
2014 through 7 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0114] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration
Branch, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Greater New Orleans Expressway
Commission requested a temporary deviation from the published
regulation for the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway
bascule bridge across Lake Pontchartrain. The deviation allows the
draws of the north bascule span to remain closed to

navigation for six consecutive weeks from 5:30 a.m. on Monday March 24,
2014 through 7 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2014 to facilitate the
replacement of electrical components of the bridge.
    Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.467(b), the draw of the
Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway bascule bridge shall
open on signal if at least three hours notice is given; except that the
draw need not be open for the passage of vessels Monday through Fridays
except Federal holidays, from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7
p.m.. The draw will open on signal for any vessel in distress or vessel
waiting immediately following the closures listed above.
    The bascule span provides a vertical clearance of 42.6 feet above
mean high water, elevation 2.6 feet NGVD in the closed-to-navigation
position, and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position.
During the closure period, the bridge will not be able to open for
vessels to transit through the bascule spans of the bridge. In case of
an emergency, the bridge owner will be able to hand crank the draws of
the bridge to the open-to-navigation position. As an alternate route,
the south channel fixed spans of the bridge provide a vertical
clearance of 50 feet above mean high water. Navigation on the waterway
consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and
other recreational craft.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 26, 2014.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-05537 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38311-38313]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0740; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-077-AD;
Amendment 39-15605; AD 2008-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,
382G, and 382J Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, 382G, and 382J series airplanes.
This AD requires, among other actions, an inspection to determine
whether a certain upper engine mount bolt is installed, and replacement
of any discrepant upper engine mount bolt with a new one. This AD
results from a report indicating that several upper engine mount bolts
manufactured by a certain supplier broke during installation. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper engine mount bolts,
which could result in reduced structural capability of an engine mount,
and possible separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during
flight.

DATES: This AD is effective July 22, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,
One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia
30349; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that several upper engine
mount bolts broke during installation. These bolts have part number (P/
N) NAS 636 and have ``AFC'' or ``A'' (AirFasco of Canton, Ohio) stamped
on the bolt head. Upper engine mount bolts are used to attach the quick
engine change (QEC) to the truss mounts in a four-bolt pattern (two
upper and two lower bolts). The failures occurred on military versions
of Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, 382G, and 382J series
airplanes. The discrepant bolts were located in the upper two positions
of the four bolt pattern (different bolts are installed in the lower
two positions and are not interchangeable with the bolts in the upper
two positions). Investigation revealed that Lockheed has not approved
AirFasco as a supplier of these bolts. Material hardness testing also
revealed that the discrepant bolts do not meet hardness requirements.
The cause for the inadequate hardness is improper heat treatment.
    Failure of the upper engine mount bolts could result in reduced
structural capability of an engine mount, and possible separation of a
strut and engine from the airplane during flight.
    The upper engine mount bolts are commercially available. We do not
know whether any of the discrepant bolts were sold to commercial
operators by the supplier or an agent. Therefore, the discrepant bolts
might be installed on Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, 382G, and
382J series airplanes.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type
design(s). This AD requires, among other actions, an inspection to
determine whether a certain upper engine mount bolt is installed, and
replacement of any discrepant upper engine mount bolt with a new one.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    It is not known when or if the discrepant upper engine mount bolts
might have been installed on affected airplanes. The QEC-to-truss mount
joint is designed to be failsafe for a single failed upper engine mount
bolt. If both bolts in the upper position of an upper engine mount are
discrepant, the ability for this joint to carry the QEC loads is
compromised, and consequently one upper engine mount bolt could fail.
If one bolt in the upper position of an upper engine mount fails, the
other bolt in the upper position of the upper engine mount could also
fail within a short amount of time. Failure to replace these discrepant
bolts greatly increases the risk of operating with a QEC attachment
system that might be incapable of handling design level loads. Because
of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and the
critical need to ensure the structural capability of an engine mount
and the short compliance time involved with this action, this AD must
be issued immediately.
    Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0740; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-077-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-14-10 Lockheed: Amendment 39-15605. Docket No. FAA-2008-0740;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-077-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 22,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,
382G, and 382J series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report indicating that several upper
engine mount bolts manufactured by a certain supplier broke during
installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper
engine mount bolts, which could result in reduced structural
capability of an engine mount, and possible separation of a strut
and engine from the airplane during flight.

Compliance

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

Access and Inspection

    (f) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD do the
actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this
AD.
    (1) Make the airplane safe for maintenance in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 71-00 of the Lockheed Hercules
Maintenance Manual is one approved method.
    (2) Gain access to the upper engine mount bolts by opening the
left and right cowling doors on each engine.
    (3) Inspect the visible surface head of each bolt in the upper
position of each upper engine mount to determine whether part number
(P/N) ``NAS 636'' is stamped across the top, and whether the
manufacturer's code ``AFC'' or ``A'' (i.e., AirFasco) is stamped
across the bottom. All other manufacturers' codes are acceptable.

Replacement and Corrective Actions

    (g) If any upper position bolt, P/N NAS 636, having ``AFC'' or
``A'' stamped across the bottom of the surface head is found during
the inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before
further flight, replace that bolt with a new bolt, P/N NAS 636,
having a manufacturers' code other than ``AFC'' or ``A,'' in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA.
One approved method is the following: To replace an engine mount
bolt without removing an engine, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(8) of this AD. If both bolts in the
upper position of an engine mount must be replaced, the replacements
must be done one at a time to prevent alignment problems.
    (1) Shut down and disconnect external electrical power in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA.
Chapter 24-40 of the Lockheed Hercules Maintenance Manual is one
approved method.
    (2) Attach a warning tag and close the external power receptacle
door.
    (3) Install the nacelle hoist sling on the power package.
    (4) Lift the nacelle hoist sling enough to take up load.
Warning: When ``NO-LOADING'' an engine with the sling, the intention
is to transfer most of the weight of the engine from the airplane to
the sling. This requires some judgment on the part of the
technician. Under no circumstances should the sling be raised enough
to lift the airplane.
    (5) Remove the discrepant upper engine mount bolt and washer.
    (6) Install the new upper engine mount bolt, P/N NAS 636, having
a manufacturers' code other than ``AFC'' or ``A,'' and washer, and
torque to between 308 and 458 foot-pounds (3,700 to 5,500 inch-
pounds).
    (7) Remove the nacelle hoist sling from the power package.
    (8) Once all discrepant bolts in the upper position of each
upper engine mount have been replaced, restore the airplane to
service in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta
ACO, FAA. Chapter 71-00 of the Lockheed Hercules Maintenance Manual
is one approved method.

    Note 1: It is the intent of the actions specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD to allow replacement of individual upper engine mount
bolts without having to do any other maintenance.

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
bolt, P/N NAS 636, having ``AFC'' or ``A'' stamped across the bottom
of the surface head, in the upper position of any upper engine
mount, on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, ATTN: Carl Gray, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, One Crown
Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-15181 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 15400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment (Final
EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision
(ROD) for a Proposed Airport Traffic Control Tower and Base Building at
Peoria International Airport, Peoria, Illinois.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment
(Final EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of
Decision (ROD) for a Proposed Airport Traffic Control Tower and Base
Building at Peoria International Airport, Peoria, Illinois.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that the FAA has prepared, and approved on
December 15, 2015, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of
Decision (ROD) based on the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA)
for a Proposed Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) with Associated
Base Building at Peoria International Airport (PIA), Peoria, Illinois.
The FAA prepared the Final EA in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the FAA's regulations and guidelines for
environmental documents and was signed on September 25, 2015. Copies of
the FONSI/ROD and/or Final EA are available by contacting Ms. Virginia
Marcks through the contact information provided below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Virginia Marcks, Manager,
Infrastructure Engineering Center, AJW-2C15H, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.
Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final EA evaluated the construction and
operation of a new ATCT and Base Building at PIA. The ATCT will be
located approximately 660 feet east of the existing ATCT facility on
vacant land located on airport property. The new ATCT will be a Low
Activity Level facility with a 440 square foot cab and will be at an
overall height of 162 feet above ground level. The Base Building will
be 11,000 sq. feet to house the Terminal Radar Approach Control
(TRACON) facility. The project also includes, and the Final EA
evaluated, construction of a paved parking area next to the Base
Building; site work, including, grading, drainage, utilities, and
fencing; decommissioning the existing ATCT; modification to the
existing FAA Remote Transmitter/Receiver (RTR) and Low Level Windshear
Alert System (LLWAS) including upgrade and/or relocation; unconditional
approval of the revised Airport Layout Plan; and Federal funding of the
project.
    The Final EA has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and FAA Order
1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' which is
compliant with FAA Order 1050.1F, effective July 16, 2015, paragraph 1-
9, pertaining to ongoing environmental documents. In addition, FAA
Order 5050.4B, ``National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions'' has been used as guidance in the
preparation of the environmental analysis.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on February 17, 2016.
Virginia Marcks,
Manager, Infrastructure Engineering Center, Chicago, AJW-2C15H, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-06321 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50880-50881]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-488-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Applications and Establishing
Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on August 27, 2021, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR),
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), in
Docket No. CP21-488-000, for authorization to implement working gas
capacity-to base gas capacity conversions (``Storage Conversion Plan'')
at the Goodwell Storage Field, located in Newaygo County, Michigan, and
at the Lincoln-Freeman Storage Field, located in Clare County,
Michigan. ANR states that the Storage Conversion Plan is needed to
allow ANR to access and utilize stranded working storage capacity and
improve late season deliverability and reliability at the Goodwell and
Lincoln-Freeman fields.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Alexander Kass, Legal Counsel, ANR Pipeline Company, 700 Louisiana
Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28,
2021. How to file comments and motions to intervene is explained below.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before September 28, 2021. However, the filing of a comment alone
will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a
party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the

environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and
will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's
environmental review process.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\2\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \3\ and the regulations under the NGA \4\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is September 28, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. [For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene.] For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \4\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

How To File Comments and Interventions

    There are two ways to submit your comments and motions to intervene
to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project
docket number CP21-488-000 in your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of submissions.
    (1) You may file your comments or motions to intervene
electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing'' or ``Intervention''; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below. Your written comments must reference the
Project docket number (CP21-488-000).
    To mail via USPS, use the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    To mail via any other courier, use the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852

    Motions to intervene must be served on the applicants either by
mail or email (with a link to the document) at: ANR Pipeline Company
(ANR), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700 or
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicants and all other parties to
the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from
the service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be
via email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \5\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\6\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\7\ A person obtaining
party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \6\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \7\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the
projects will be available from the Commission's Office of External
Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28,
2021.

    Dated: September 7, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19674 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P