[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33402-33406]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0070]

Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Renewal of Temporary
Exemption from the Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for renewal of a temporary
exemption from certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Tesla
Motors, Inc., has petitioned the agency for renewal of a temporary
exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
The basis for the application is that the petitioner avers that
compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard.\1\ This notice of
receipt of an application for renewal of temporary exemptions is
published in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.
NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the applications, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than July 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,

except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \2\ The upgrade was designed to meet the twin goals of
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted,
in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issuance of the advanced air bag requirements was a culmination
of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address
the adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats.
    The new requirements were phased-in, beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air
bag requirements until the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September
1, 2006.
    In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers, each of
which has petitioned on the basis that compliance would cause it
substantial economic hardship and that it has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. In recognition of the more limited resources
and capabilities of small motor vehicle manufacturers, authority to
grant exemptions based on substantial economic hardship and good faith
efforts was added to the Vehicle Safety Act in 1972 to enable the
agency to give those manufacturers additional time to comply with the
Federal safety standards.
    NHTSA has granted a number of these petitions, usually in
situations in which the manufacturer is supplying standard air bags in
lieu of advanced air bags.\3\ In addressing these petitions, NHTSA has
recognized that small manufacturers may face particular difficulties in
acquiring or developing advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding those previous grants of exemption, NHTSA is
considering two key issues--
    (1) whether it is in the public interest to continue to grant such
petitions, particularly in the same manner as in the past, given the
number of years these requirements have now been in effect and the
benefits of advanced air bags, and
    (2) to the extent such petitions are granted, what plans and
countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants, short of
compliance with the advanced air bags, should be expected.

While the exemption authority was created to address the problems of
small manufacturers and the agency wishes to be appropriately attentive
to those problems, it was not anticipated by the agency that use of
this authority would result in small manufacturers being given much
more than relatively short term exemptions from recently implemented
safety standards, especially those addressing particularly significant
safety problems.
    Given the passage of time since the advanced air bag requirements
were established and implemented, and in light of the benefits of
advanced air bags, NHTSA is considering whether it is in the public
interest to continue to grant exemptions from these requirements,
particularly under the same terms as in the past. The costs of
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 are
costs that all entrants to the U.S. automobile marketplace should
expect to bear. Furthermore, NHTSA understands that, in contrast to the
initial years after the advanced air bag requirements went into effect,
low volume manufacturers now have access to advanced air bag
technology. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the expense
of advanced air bag technology is not now sufficient, in and of itself,
to justify the grant of a petition for a hardship exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements.
    NHTSA further notes that the granting of exemptions from motor
vehicle safety standards is subject to the agency's finding that the
petitioning manufacturer has ``tried to comply with the standard in
good faith.'' \4\ In response to prior petitions, NHTSA has granted
temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements as a means
of affording eligible manufacturers an additional transition period to
comply with the exempted standard. In deciding whether to grant an
exemption based on substantial economic hardship and good faith
efforts, NHTSA considers the steps that the manufacturer has already
taken to achieve compliance, as well as the future steps the
manufacturer plans to take during the exemption period and the
estimated date by which full compliance will be achieved.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i)
    \5\ 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA invites comment on whether and in what circumstances (e.g.,
nature of vehicles, number of vehicles, level of efforts to comply with
the requirements, timing as to number of years since the requirements
were implemented, etc.) it should continue to grant petitions for first
time exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208
and petitions for renewed exemptions from those requirements. We note
that any policy statements we may make in this area would not have the
effect of precluding manufacturers from submitting subsequent petitions
for exemption. However, we believe it could be helpful for
manufacturers to know our general views in advance of submitting a
petition.
    We also request comment on the issue of, to the extent any future
hardship exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements are granted,
what plans and countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants,
short of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements, should be
expected. In

this regard, we note the agency is authorized to condition the granting
of exemptions on such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate.\6\
In responding to some recent petitions for exemption from the advanced
air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA has considered the fact
that the petitioner planned to install some countermeasures for the
protection of child passengers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b).
    \7\ See, e.g., grant of petition of Think Technology AS, 74 FR
40634-01 (Aug. 12, 2009); grant of petition of Ferrari S.p.A., 74 FR
36303-02 (July 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also invites comment on the likelihood that a child or infant
will be a passenger in any vehicles that would be produced and sold in
the U.S. under the requested exemption.

II. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety
standard or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C.
30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this
section to NHTSA.
    The Act authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary exemption to
a manufacturer of not more than 10,000 motor vehicles annually, on such
terms as he deems appropriate, if he finds that the exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and if he also
finds that ``compliance with the standard would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the
standard in good faith.''
    The Act also authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary
exemption from a standard, for not more than 2,500 motor vehicles per
year, to a manufacturer of any size, on such terms as he deems
appropriate, if he finds that the exemption would be consistent with
the public interest and the Safety Act and if he also finds either that
    [squf] The exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
    [squf] The exemption would make the development or field evaluation
of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that vehicle; or
    [squf] Compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.
    NHTSA established Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. Under Part 555, a petitioner must
provide specified information in submitting a petition for exemption.
These requirements are specified in 49 CFR 555.5, and include a number
of items. Foremost among them are that the petitioner must set forth
the basis of the application under Sec.  555.6, and the reasons why the
exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also
might be deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle. The statutory
provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do
not state that a manufacturer has substantial responsibility as
manufacturer of a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second
manufacturer that assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers
the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances.
Thus, NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a
sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second
manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial role in the
development and manufacturing process of that vehicle.
    While 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a Safety Act
standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \8\ the statute
also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on reapplication.
Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that the agency's decision to
grant an initial petition in no way predetermines that the agency will
repeatedly grant renewal petitions, thereby imparting semi-permanent
status to an exemption from a safety standard. Exempted manufacturers
seeking renewal must bear in mind that the agency is directed to
consider financial hardship as but one factor, along with the
manufacturer's ongoing good faith efforts to comply with the
regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act,
generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ``If an application
for renewal of temporary exemption that meets the requirements of Sec.
555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the termination date
of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the
Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.'' This
petition for renewal has been submitted by the deadline stated in 49
CFR 555.8(e).

III. Overview of Petition

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Tesla Motors, Inc., (Tesla) has submitted a petition asking
the agency for renewal of its temporary exemption from certain advanced
air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The basis for the application is
that compliance would cause the petitioner substantial economic
hardship and that the petitioner has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Tesla has requested a renewal of its exemption for a
period of two years from January 29, 2011 to January 28, 2013.
    Tesla is petitioning for renewal of its exemption from certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically,
the petition requests an exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements (S14), with the exception of the belted, rigid barrier
provisions of S14.5.1(a); the rigid barrier test requirement using the
5th percentile adult female test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15); the
offset deformable barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile
adult female test dummy (S17); and the requirements to provide
protection for infants and children (S19, S21, and S23). Tesla has
requested a two-year extension of its exemption, from January 28, 2011
to January 28, 2013, for the Roadster model.
    In a Federal Register document dated January 28, 2008, Tesla was
granted a temporary exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 listed above for the Roadster.\9\ The exemption was
granted for the period from the date of publication until January 28,
2011. The basis for the grant was that compliance with the advanced air
bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard and that

such exemption was in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of traffic safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 73 FR 4944 (Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a November 24, 2010 petition, Tesla sought renewal of its
exemption. The basis for Tesla's application is substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Tesla is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
California with sales offices throughout the United States and
overseas. Tesla currently manufactures and sells only one vehicle, the
Roadster. Tesla has sold or leased 287 Roadsters in the 12 months prior
to filing its petition for extension. Tesla states that it continues to
be eligible for a financial hardship exemption, and that it has
suffered substantial losses and will continue to do so while selling
the Roadster.
    Tesla began production of the all-electric Roadster in 2008. The
Roadster has a single-speed electrically actuated automatic
transmission and three phase, four pole AC induction motor. The
Roadster has a combined range of 245 miles on a single charge. Under an
agreement with Group Lotus plc (Lotus), Tesla purchases the Roadster
``glider,'' which uses the chassis and several other systems of the
Lotus Elise. The gliders are manufactured under Tesla's supervision and
direction at a Lotus factory in the United Kingdom and then shipped to
Menlo Park, California, where installation of the power train and other
final steps are taken prior to sale of the vehicle in the United
States. Tesla asserts that Lotus will cease manufacturing Roadster
gliders in December 2011, and Tesla plans to finish production in early
2012 and offer remaining Roadsters for sale during 2012.
    According to Tesla, the Roadster was conceived as a limited proof-
of-concept for later generations of Tesla vehicles. Tesla intends to
introduce its next electric vehicle, a four-door fully electric sedan
known as the Model S. Tesla states that the Model S would meet or
exceed all FMVSSs in effect by the time the vehicle is released for
production in 2012.
    Tesla contends that it is eligible for an economic hardship
exemption. Tesla has produced fewer than 10,000 vehicles since the
company's founding in 2003. Worldwide production of the Roadster for
calendar year 2010 will be approximately 600 to 700 vehicles. Tesla
also states that it will not produce more than 10,000 vehicles
(combined Roadster and Model S production) per year during the
requested exemption period.
    In the January 2008 notice granting Tesla's original exemption, the
agency determined that Lotus, as well as Tesla, was considered a
manufacturer of the Roadster. The basis for this determination was
information in the prior petition that Lotus would be assembling the
Roadster. Nevertheless, the agency determined that Tesla was eligible
for an economic hardship petition because the combined production of
Lotus and Tesla was fewer than 10,000 vehicles.
    In its petition for extension, Tesla contends that the relationship
between Lotus and Tesla does not involve ownership, sponsorship, or any
type of control of one entity over the other. Tesla also reiterates
that, even if the production of Lotus and Tesla vehicles are combined,
the total production is far below the threshold 10,000 vehicle per year
limit for hardship exemptions.
    Tesla cites five reasons why the failure to obtain the requested
extension of its exemption would cause substantial economic hardship.
First, Tesla has incurred cumulative net losses of $360 million since
inception through September 30, 2010, and a net loss of $100 million
for the first nine months of 2010. Tesla also expects cumulative losses
to almost double before launch of the Model S. Second, Tesla contends
that the loss of the ability to sell the Roadster in the United States
would cause Tesla to incur severe financial harm, which would
substantially increase the likelihood of breaching financial covenants
in its loan documents with the U.S. Department of Energy, potentially
depriving Tesla of a source of capital. Third, Tesla has committed
certain remaining costs for the Roadster that cannot be cancelled, such
as a fixed supply contract with Lotus and other suppliers until the end
of 2011. Fourth, Tesla contends that ending U.S. sales of the Roadster
would require Tesla to refund $2.4 million in deposits on Roadster
reservations, exacerbating its financial hardship. Fifth, because the
Roadster is the only Tesla model available in the United States, Tesla
states that cancellation of the program would result in a significant
loss of market share.
    Tesla also contends that Lotus, and by extension Tesla, has exerted
good faith efforts to achieve compliance with the advanced air bag
requirements. Tesla notes that the Roadster shares a number of common
components and systems with the Lotus Elise, including the passive
safety systems. Tesla believes that, for the reasons outlined in
Lotus's petition for an extension of its FMVSS No. 208 exemption for
the Elise, Lotus has exerted good faith efforts to comply with the
advanced air bag requirements.\10\ Furthermore, Tesla states that it is
in no better position than Lotus to develop an advanced air bag system
for the Elise-based Roadster. Like the Lotus Elise, the Tesla Roadster
is coming to the end of its model life. Given the limited number of
Roadsters planned for production, Tesla believes that developing an
advanced air bag system for the Roadster at this time is economically
impracticable. Tesla also contends that it has been using the three
years of its current exemption to develop the Model S, which will
include advanced air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Tesla has included, as an attachment to its petition, a
copy of Lotus's petition for an extension of its temporary exemption
from certain provisions of FMVSS No. 208. That petition is being
considered separately. A separate notice of receipt published in
today's Federal Register addresses Lotus's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tesla also contends that the requested extension of its exemption
is in the public interest for five reasons. First, Tesla states that
granting the petition would encourage development and sale of highway-
capable electric vehicles by Tesla and other manufacturers. Second,
Tesla contends that the public interest considerations supporting other
similar extension petitions previously granted by NHTSA exist for Tesla
as well. Third, Tesla states that the Roadster has a high degree of
safety because of its design. Even without advanced air bags, Tesla
believes that the requested exemption would have a negligible impact on
vehicle safety because of the limited number of vehicles that would be
sold in the United States under the extension. Fourth, Tesla contends
that the Roadster does not pose an unreasonable risk to safety of
infants or children because young children are unlikely to be
passengers in the Roadster and neither Tesla nor Lotus has received any
complaints, reports, or information of air-bag-related injuries. Fifth,
Tesla contends that granting its petition will have a positive impact
on U.S. employment in the automotive industry, and that denying its
petition would not only directly impact the jobs of current Tesla
employees supporting the Roadster, but also potentially compromise the
company's ability to move forward with the Model S.

IV. Completeness and Comment Period

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition from
Tesla is complete and that Tesla is eligible for an extension of its

temporary exemption. The agency has not made any judgment on the merits
of the application, and is placing a non-confidential copy of the
petition in the docket.
    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: June 1, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-14183 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62118]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2492-000]

Phoenix Energy New England, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Phoenix Energy New England, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 19, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 29, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21528 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Mark Morgan < ptsa@ erols. com> 10/ 27/ 2003 10: 36 AM To: Jeff Herzog/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Re: Request for PTSA's input on the potential for contamination of jet fuel with the proposed heating oil marker Good Morning Jeff:

I would be happy to provide you with the input you requested. I will talk to some of my members and see what they are doing and thinking about this issue and get back to you next week. Thanks for seeking our input.

Mark Mark S. Morgan, Esq. Executive Director Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association 4200 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W., Suite 106 Washington D. C. 20016 ( 202) 364 6767 Herzog. Jeff@ epamail. epa. gov wrote:

> > Mark, > This note is to request your input on whether the safeguards taken > by smaller fuel distributors which handle both jet fuel and heating oil >( such as those represented by PTSA) to prevent jet fuel contamination by > heating oil and the IRS red dye would also be sufficient to prevent the > contamination of jet fuel with the marker that we proposed be added to > heating oil under the nonroad diesel fuel proposed rule. > > As you are likely aware, the Coordinating Research Council ( CRC) > fuel marker task force was formed to address concerns regarding the > potential contamination of jet fuel with the proposed heating oil > marker. Under our proposal, the fuel marker would be needed in heating > oil to ensure that heating oil would not be diverted into the nonroad, > locomotive, and marine ( NRLM) diesel pool because we could not rely on > the measurement of sulfur content to differentiate NRLM diesel from 2 > heating oil. This is because in the early years of the program we > proposed to allow small quantities of high sulfur fuel destined for the > NRLM market to continue to be manufactured by small refiners and under > the proposed refiner credit provisions. We proposed to allow this high > sulfur NRLM fuel to be blended downstream with other NRLM fuel that was > manufactured to the proposed 500 ppm sulfur standard. > > We proposed that the fuel marker be added to heating oil at the > refinery. The majority of concerns voiced about potential marker > contamination of jet fuel pertain to shipments of marked heating oil in > pipelines that also carry marked heating oil. If, as we hope, we are > able to finalize a designate and track system of ensuring refiner > compliance with the proposed desulfurization requirements ( in place of > the proposed baseline approach), we may be able to move the point of > marker addition to the terminal level ( when red dye is injected per IRS > requirements). Moving the point of marker addition to the terminal > might alleviate the majority of jet fuel contamination concerns. > > The CRC task force has received input from a number of larger > terminals which indicates that their fueling hardware and practices > would essentially preclude any potential for contaminating jet fuel with > heating oil containing the proposed marker ( or with the marker itself). > However, there remains some concern within the CRC group that this may > not be the case for smaller entities that would distribute both jet fuel > and marked heating oil. > > I would appreciate any input that you may be able to provide > regarding situations at your member facilities (& operations) where > there may be a risk of contaminating jet fuel with the fuel marker that > we envision would be added to heating oil ( at the time the IRS required > red dye addition takes place at the terminal), and what measures would > be necessary to mitigate such risks. I am particularly interested in > cases where the same equipment would be used for handling jet fuel and > marked heating oil, and what measures that are already in place to > prevent red dye ( and heating oil) contamination of jet fuel. I believe > that the presence of a fuel marker in addition to the red dye downstream > of the terminal would not make the task of limiting contamination of jet > fuel more difficult than it is today, and request your input on this > assessment. > > Thanks for consideration, > > Jeffrey A. Herzog, Mechanical Engineer 3 > United States Environmental Protection Agency > National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory > Assessment and Standards Division > 2000 Traverwood Drive > Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105 > Phone: ( 734) 214 4227 > Fax: ( 734) 214 4816 > E Mail: herzog. jeff@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47955-47956]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026]

Curtis-Straus LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for Curtis-Straus LLC, as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
August 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL) as an NRTL. CSL's expansion
covers the addition of nine test standards to its scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    CSL submitted two applications, one dated August 29, 2014, and one
dated February 25, 2015 (OSHA-2009-0026-0057, CSL Exhibit 1--Expansion
Application for Nine Standards and OSHA-2009-0026-0058, CSL Exhibit 2--
Expansion Application for One Standard). These two applications were
combined. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-site review in
relation to these applications on January 27, 2015 to January 28, 2015.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSL's expansion
application in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29342). The
Agency requested comments by June 5, 2015, but it received no comments
in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final
notice to grant expansion of CSL's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the CSL's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026 contains all materials in the record
concerning CSL's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined CSL's expansion application, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSL
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed
below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant
CSL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSL's
recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration
of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in CSL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1012................................  Power Supplies.
UL 1310................................  Direct Plug-In Transformer
                                          Units.
UL 60065...............................  Audio, Video and Similar
                                          Electronic Apparatus.
UL 60950-21............................  Information Technology
                                          Equipment--Safety--Part 21:
                                          Remote Power Feeding.
UL 60950-22............................  Information Technology
                                          Equipment--Safety--Part 22:
                                          Equipment to be Installed
                                          Outdoors.
UL 60950-23............................  Information Technology
                                          Equipment--Safety--Part 23:
                                          Large Data Storage Equipment.
UL 62368-1.............................  Audio/video, information and
                                          communication technology
                                          equipment--Part 1: Safety
                                          requirements.
UL 61010-2-030.........................  Safety requirements for
                                          electrical equipment for
                                          measurement, control, and
                                          laboratory use--Part 2-030:
                                          Particular requirements for
                                          testing and measuring
                                          circuits.
UL 61010B-2-031........................  Electrical Equipment for
                                          Measurement, Control, and
                                          Laboratory Use; Part 2:
                                          Particular Requirements for
                                          Hand-Held Probe Assemblies for
                                          Electrical Measurement and
                                          Test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
CSL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. CSL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. CSL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. CSL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on CSL's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of CSL, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 5, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-19594 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 58693-58694]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56635; File No. SR-Amex-2007-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Resolving
Uncompared Transactions

October 10, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ notice is hereby given that on June 4, 2007, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') and on September 18, 2007, amended the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by Amex. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex proposes to amend Rule 724 (``Agents to Resolve DKs'') and the
corresponding Commentary to require each member to designate a
representative away from the Amex's trading floor that is authorized to
resolve uncompared transactions (``DKs'') on the members' behalf.

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

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

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

    Currently, Amex Rule 724 requires each member that executes
transactions on Amex's trading floor (``Floor'') to designate another
member on the Floor to act for it in its absence to resolve questions
and to receive or sign DK notices relating to transactions it executes.
Amex wishes to amend this requirement in order to accommodate members
with limited resources and members that can handle their own DKs. Amex
believes this proposal will benefit associate members that access Amex
electronically and do not have the requisite personnel on the Floor.
Amex states that it is not appropriate to require such firms to rely on
an individual affiliated with another firm for this purpose.
    Specifically, this proposal would make it optional for a Floor
member to designate another Floor member to act on its behalf regarding
DK notices but would require each member to designate a member firm,
allied member, registered representative, or any other person required
to be registered as a broker-dealer under the Act that is physically
located away from the Floor to act in this DK resolution capacity by
means of telephone, e-mail, or fax submission.
    Amex states that it believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6 of the Act \2\ in general and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \3\ in particular because the rule change
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Amex has not solicited or received written comments with respect to
the proposed rule change.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-56. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at Amex's principal office and on Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com
). 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-
Amex-2007-56 and should be submitted on or before November 6, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation pursuant
to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20363 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21672-21673]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-124-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on March 29, 2023, Gulf South Pipeline Company,
LLC (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046,
filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205 and
127.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and Gulf South's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000. Gulf South proposes to
abandon in place and by removal its Index 293-2 and Index 293-2S
pipelines consisting of approximately 1.3 miles total of 10-inch
natural gas pipelines located in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The
project will involve both excavation on land and dredging within the
Mississippi River to remove pipeline, all as more fully set forth in
the application, which is open to the public for inspection.
    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 protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Juan
Eligio, Jr., Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email to [email protected]. Questions may also be
directed to Payton Barrientos, Regulatory Analyst & Public Affairs
Specialist, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza,
Houston, Texas 77046, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to
[email protected].
    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 June 5, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is June 5, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person 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.
    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 \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 5, 2023. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 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.

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 June 5, 2023. 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.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-124-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's 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 ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-124-000.

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

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Juan Eligio,
Jr., Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9
Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, or by email to
[email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant 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.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
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.

    Dated: April 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07573 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P