[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59894-59895]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-2001-020, ER20-2726-001, ER20-2694-000]

Before Commissioners: Willie L. Phillips, Acting Chairman, James
P. Danly, Allison Clements, and Mark C. Christie; Electric Quarterly
Reports; Grand Energy, LLC, Icon Energy LLC; Order on Intent To Revoke
Market-Based Rate Authority

    1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d, and
18 CFR part 35 (2022), require, among other things, that all rates,
terms, and conditions for jurisdictional services be filed with the
Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its public
utility filing requirements and established a requirement for public
utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly
Reports.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 99
FERC ] 61,107, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074,
reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342, order directing
filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002), order directing
filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334, order refining filing
requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 (2003), order on
clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order
revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270,
order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ]
61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-I,
125 FERC ] 61,003 ] 31,282 (2008). See also Filing Requirements for
Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements, 155 FERC ] 61,280, order on reh'g and
clarification, 157 FERC ] 61,180 (2016) (clarifying Electric
Quarterly Reports reporting requirements and updating Data
Dictionary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission requires sellers with market-based rate
authorization to file Electric Quarterly Reports summarizing
contractual and transaction information related to their market-based
power sales as a condition for retaining that authorization.\2\
Commission staff's review of the Electric Quarterly Reports indicates
that the following two public utilities with market-based rate
authorization have failed to file their Electric Quarterly Reports:
Grand Energy, LLC and Icon Energy LLC. This order notifies these public
utilities that their market-based rate authorizations will be revoked
unless they comply with the Commission's requirements within 15 days of
the date of issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Refinements to Policies & Procedures for Mkt.-Based
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity & Ancillary
Servs. by Pub. Utils., Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 (2015),
order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 (2016); Mkt.-
Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity &
Ancillary Servs. by Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295,
clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
A, 123 FERC ] 61,055, clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g,
Order No. 697-B, 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No.
697-C, 127 FERC ] 61,284 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D,
130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer Counsel v.
FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,

    [i]f a public utility fails to file a[n] Electric Quarterly
Report (without an appropriate request for extension), or fails to
report an agreement in a report, that public utility may forfeit its
market-based rate authority and may be required to file a new
application for market-based rate authority if it wishes to resume
making sales at market-based rates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 222.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. The Commission further stated that,

    [o]nce this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply
with this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities'
market-based rate authorizations, and failure to comply with the
requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same
consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in
their rate authorizations, including possible revocation of their
authority to make wholesale power sales at market-based rates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. P 223.

    5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the
market-based rate tariffs of market-based rate sellers that failed to
submit their Electric Quarterly Reports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Electric Quarterly Reps., 82 FR 60,976 (Dec. 26,
2017); Electric Quarterly Reps., 80 FR 58,243 (Sep. 28, 2015);
Electric Quarterly Reps., 79 FR 65,651 (Nov. 5, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Sellers must file Electric Quarterly Reports consistent with the
procedures set forth in Order Nos. 2001, 768,\6\ and 770.\7\ The exact
filing dates for Electric Quarterly Reports are prescribed in 18 CFR
35.10b. As noted above, Commission staff's review of the Electric
Quarterly Reports for the period up to the first quarter of 2023
identified two public utilities with market-based rate authorization
that failed to file Electric Quarterly Reports. Commission staff
contacted or attempted to contact these entities to remind them of
their regulatory obligations. Despite these reminders, the public
utilities listed in the caption of this order have not met these
obligations. Accordingly, this order notifies these public utilities
that their market-based rate authorizations will be revoked unless they
comply with the Commission's requirements

within 15 days of the issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Electricity Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of
the Federal Power Act, Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 (2012),
order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 (2013), order on
reh'g, Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ] 61,075 (2015).
    \7\ Revisions to Elec. Quarterly Rep. Filing Process, Order No.
770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In the event that any of the above-captioned market-based rate
sellers have already filed its Electric Quarterly Reports in compliance
with the Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is
inadvertent. Such market-based rate seller is directed, within 15 days
of the date of issuance of this order, to make a filing with the
Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior
filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric
Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    8. If any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers do not
wish to continue having market-based rate authority, that seller may
file a notice of cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section
205 of the FPA to cancel its market-based rate tariff.
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, each
public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the
Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If a public
utility subject to this order fails to make the filings required in
this order, the Commission will revoke that public utility's market-
based rate authorization and will terminate its electric market-based
rate tariff. The Secretary is hereby directed, upon expiration of the
filing deadline in this order, to promptly issue a notice, effective on
the date of issuance, listing the public utilities whose tariffs have
been revoked for failure to comply with the requirements of this order
and the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    (B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: August 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18742 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54398-54400]
[DOCID:fr19se08-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179; FRL-8717-6]

Final Determination of the Assistant Administrator for Water
Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act Concerning the
Proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project in Issaquena County, MS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of EPA's Final Determination pursuant to
section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to prohibit the specification of
subject wetlands and other waters of the United States in Issaquena
County, MS, as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill
material for the purpose of construction of the proposed Yazoo
Backwater Area Pumps Project, i.e., Plan 5 in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (the Corps) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS) for the Yazoo Backwater Area Project, as well as
FSEIS Plans 3, 4, 6, and 7, and Modified Plan 6 (proposed by the Corps
after publication of the FSEIS). EPA's determination is based upon a
finding that the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with
the construction and operation of these projects would result in
unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas and wildlife.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the Final Determination is
August 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Wetlands Division, Mail code 4502T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. EPA has established a docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tanya A. Code at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Palmer F. Hough at (202) 566-
1374 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information and
copies of EPA's Final Determination are available at the following Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/404c/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) authorizes EPA to prohibit, restrict, or deny
the specification of any defined area in waters of the United States
(including wetlands) as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or
fill material whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for
public hearing, that such discharge into waters of the United States
will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding
areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
    EPA's regulations for implementing section 404(c) are set forth in
40 CFR part 231. Four major steps in the process are: (1) The Regional
Administrator's notice to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps),
the property owner, and the applicant (and/or project proponent) of the
intention to initiate the section 404(c) process; (2) the Regional
Administrator's publication of a Proposed Determination to withdraw,
deny, restrict, or prohibit the use of the site, soliciting public
comment and offering an opportunity for a public hearing; (3) the
Regional Administrator's recommendation to the Assistant Administrator
for Water at EPA Headquarters to withdraw, deny, restrict, or prohibit
the use of the site (Recommended Determination); and, (4) the Assistant
Administrator for Water's Final Determination to affirm, modify, or
rescind the Regional recommendation.
    Pursuant to section 404(c), EPA initiated a CWA section 404(c)
review of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project on February
1, 2008. The Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project is a Corps Civil Works
project designed to address flooding concerns in a 630,000 acre area
situated between the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers in west-central
Mississippi (Yazoo Backwater Area). The project is represented as Plan
5 in the Corps' FSEIS (published in November 2007). The primary
component of this project is a 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
pumping station that would pump surface water out of the Yazoo
Backwater Area during high water events on the Mississippi River. The
project also includes 10,662 acres of reforestation of agricultural
land to compensate for the adverse environmental impacts associated
with the project, and up to 40,571 acres of reforestation of
agricultural land to provide potential environmental benefits.
    According to the Corps, the Yazoo Backwater Area contains between
150,000 to 229,000 acres of wetlands, as well as an extensive network
of streams, creeks, and other aquatic resources. Extensive information
collected on the Yazoo Backwater Area demonstrates that it includes
some of the richest wetland and aquatic resources in the Nation. These
include a highly productive floodplain fishery, substantial tracts of
highly productive bottomland hardwood forests that once dominated the
Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV), and important
migratory bird foraging grounds. These wetlands provide important
habitat for an extensive variety of wetland dependent animal and plant
species, including the federally protected Louisiana black bear and
pondberry plant. In addition to serving as critical fish and wildlife
habitat, project area wetlands also provide a suite of other important
ecological functions. These wetlands protect and improve water quality
by removing and retaining pollutants, temporarily store surface water,
maintain stream flows, and support aquatic food webs by processing and
exporting significant amounts of organic carbon. As stated in the
FSEIS, ``The lands in the lower Mississippi Delta are noted for high
value fish and wildlife resources. The area serves as an integral part
of the economic and social life of local residents and sportsmen from
around the Nation'' (FSEIS, Appendix 1--Mitigation, page 1-29).
    The construction and operation of the proposed pumps would
dramatically alter the timing, and reduce the spatial extent, depth,
frequency, and duration of time that wetlands within the project area
are inundated. After extensive evaluation of the record for this
project, EPA has determined that these large-scale hydrologic
alterations would significantly degrade the critical ecological
functions provided by approximately 67,000 acres of wetlands in the
Yazoo Backwater Area, including those functions that support wildlife
and fisheries resources.
    During the initial consultation period with the Corps and the
Mississippi

Board of Levee Commissioners (the project sponsor), the Corps offered
two alternatives to the proposed project to reduce wetland impacts. One
of these alternatives is Plan 6 from the FSEIS, and the other is a
modified version of Plan 6. Both of these alternatives retain the
14,000 cfs pump station, but include modifications to the pump-on
elevation and the amount of compensatory mitigation and reforestation
as compared to Plan 5. After discussions with the Corps and following
careful consideration of the two alternatives, EPA is concerned that
neither proposal would reduce impacts to an acceptable level.
    In March 2008, EPA Region IV published a proposal (i.e., Proposed
Determination) to prohibit or restrict the use of certain waters of the
United States as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill
material in connection with the construction of the proposed Yazoo
Backwater Area Pumps Project (73 FR 14806, March 19, 2008). EPA Region
IV solicited public comments on the Proposed Determination until May 5,
2008. EPA received approximately 47,600 written comment letters,
including approximately 1,500 individual comment letters and 46,100
mass mailers. Nearly all of the comment letters (99.9 percent) urged
EPA to prohibit discharges to waters of the United States associated
with the proposed pumps project. A public hearing was held in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, on April 17, 2008, in which approximately 500
people participated. A total of 67 people provided oral statements,
including one representative from the Corps' Vicksburg District and
four individuals representing the project sponsor. Of the remaining 62
people who provided oral statements, 32 people spoke in opposition to
the proposed pumps project, 29 spoke in favor of the pumps project and
one person did not specify a position. In total, approximately 463
residents of the state of Mississippi submitted written comments to EPA
or spoke at the public hearing. Of these, 417 expressed support for
EPA's proposal and 45 favored construction of the pumps. Within the
Yazoo Backwater Area, a total of 31 residents expressed an opinion on
the project either at the public hearing, in written comments, or both.
Of these 31, four expressed support for EPA's position, 26 expressed
support for construction of the pumps, and one did not express an
opinion.
    On July 2, 2008, EPA Region IV submitted to EPA Headquarters its
Recommended Determination to prohibit the specification of certain
wetlands and other waters of the United States within Humphreys,
Issaquena, Sharkey, Warren, Washington, or Yazoo County, in the state
of Mississippi as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill
material for the purpose of construction of the proposed Yazoo
Backwater Area Project, or any similar pump project in the Yazoo
Backwater Area that would result in unacceptable adverse effects on
fishery areas and wildlife.
    EPA Region IV based its recommendation upon a conclusion that the
proposed discharge of fill material into 43.6 acres of wetlands and
other waters of the United States in connection with the construction
of the pumping station and the subsequent secondary impacts, would
result in unacceptable adverse effects on at least 67,000 acres of
wetlands and other waters of the United States and their associated
wildlife and fisheries resources. Additionally, EPA Region IV expressed
concern that the proposed mitigation would not fully compensate for the
potential impacts of the project, as identified in the FSEIS, and that
the suggested environmental benefits associated with the project's
reforestation component have not been substantiated. EPA Region IV also
stated that the Corps did not evaluate the proposed project's adverse
impacts on up to 24,000 acres of wetlands outside the FSEIS's wetland
assessment area. EPA Region IV also expressed its belief that there are
likely to be less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives
available to achieve the improved flood protection goals of the
proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Project.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in its comments on the
Proposed and Recommended Determinations, concurred with EPA Region IV's
conclusion that the proposed project would result in extensive and
unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife and fishery areas. FWS also
highlighted its concerns that the proposed project would significantly
degrade the wildlife habitat provided by its four National Wildlife
Refuges located within the Yazoo Backwater Area--reducing the
capability of these refuges to achieve the purpose and intent for which
they were Congressionally established.
    EPA prepared the Final Determination based on an evaluation of EPA
Region IV's Recommended Determination, and review and consideration of
the administrative record, including information in the Corps' 2007
FSEIS, public comments received in writing and at the public hearing,
and submissions by other federal and state agencies. In addition, the
Final Determination reflects the careful review and full consideration
of written information that was subsequently submitted and made part of
the record, as well as information conveyed to EPA by the Department of
the Army and the project sponsor during the EPA Headquarters section
404(c) consultation process.
    EPA's Final Determination concludes that the discharge of dredged
or fill material in connection with the construction of the proposed
Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project (i.e., Plan 5 from the FSEIS), as
well as the two alternative proposals offered by the Corps in February
2008 (i.e., Plan 6 from the FSEIS and Modified Plan 6) and subsequent
operation of the 14,000 cfs pumping station would result in
unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas and wildlife. The
administrative record developed in this case fully supports the
conclusion that, as a result of alterations to the spatial extent,
depth, frequency, and duration of inundation of wetlands within the
project area, the proposed projects would significantly degrade the
critical ecological functions provided by approximately 28,400 to
67,000 acres of wetlands (i.e., the range of wetland impacts as a
result of Plan 5, Plan 6, and Modified Plan 6) in the Yazoo Backwater
Area, including those functions that support wildlife and fisheries
resources. Although not proposed to go forward, FSEIS Plans 3, 4, and
7, which also include a 14,000 cfs pumping station are expected to
result in wetland impacts between approximately 28,400 and 118,400
acres (see FSEIS Main Report, Table 17, page 1-20). EPA has determined
that each of these alternatives would also result in unacceptable
adverse effects on fishery areas and wildlife. EPA does not believe
that these adverse impacts can be adequately compensated for by the
proposed mitigation, and are inconsistent with the requirements of the
CWA. Further, these impacts should be viewed in the context of the
significant cumulative losses across the Lower Mississippi River
Alluvial Valley (LMRAV), which has already lost over 80 percent of its
bottomland forested wetlands, and specifically in the Mississippi Delta
where the proposed project would significantly degrade important
bottomland forested wetlands.
    Based on these findings, the Final Determination prohibits,
pursuant to section 404(c) of the CWA, the specification of the subject
wetlands and other waters of the United States as described in the
FSEIS as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill material
for the purpose of construction

of FSEIS Plans 3 through 7, and Modified Plan 6. The adverse effects
associated with the prohibited projects are the result of a combination
of operational factors including the capacity of the pumping station
and its associated pump-on elevations. While the Final Determination
prohibits the construction of FSEIS Plans 3 through 7, and Modified
Plan 6, the data supporting the Final Determination indicates that
derivatives of the prohibited projects that involve only small
modifications to the operational features or location of these
proposals would also likely result in unacceptable adverse effects and
would generate a similar level of concern and review by EPA.
    EPA continues to support the goal of providing improved flood
protection for the residents of the Mississippi Delta; however, it
believes that this vital objective can be accomplished consistent with
ensuring effective protection for the area's valuable natural
resources. EPA is committed to participating in discussions with other
federal and state agencies, and the public, concerning the best way to
provide flood protection while protecting wetlands and other natural
resources.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. E8-22002 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4686-4688]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94042; File No. SR-ISE-2022-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend References
to FINRA Continuing Education Fees

January 24, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 11, 2022, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 9, Legal & Regulatory, to reflect adjustments to FINRA
Continuing Education Fees.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the new Maintaining Qualifications Program
(``MQP'') Fee, elimination of the $100 Continuing Education Session
Fee, and technical amendments to become operative on January 31, 2022.
Additionally, the Exchange designates an $18 Continuing Education
Regulatory Element Session Fee to become operative on January 1,
2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93928 (January 7,
2022) (SR-FINRA-2021-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposal amends ISE's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section
9, Legal & Regulatory, to reflect adjustments to FINRA Continuing
Education Fees.\4\ The FINRA fees are collected and retained by FINRA
via Web CRD for the registration of employees of ISE Members that are
not FINRA members (``Non-FINRA members''). The Exchange is merely
listing these fees on its Pricing Schedule. The Exchange does not
collect or retain these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA operates Web CRD, the central licensing and
registration system for the U.S. securities industry. FINRA uses Web
CRD to maintain the qualification, employment and disciplinary
histories of registered associated persons of broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, ISE Options 7, Section 9E, provides a list of FINRA Web CRD
Fees, Fingerprint Processing Fees, and Continuing Education Fees. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Continuing Education Fees within Options
7, Section 9E on behalf of the Exchange. The fees listed within Options
7, Section 9E reflect fees set by FINRA.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to decrease the $55 Continuing
Education Web-based Fee to $18. This amendment is made in accordance
with a recent FINRA rule change to adjust to its fees.\5\

FINRA currently charges a fee of $55 to each individual who completes
the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements
pursuant to Exchange General 4, Section 1240. In conjunction with the
amendments to transition to an annual Regulatory Element requirement,
FINRA amended the Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee
from $55 to $18.\6\ FINRA indicated in the Continuing Education Fee
Filing that it would begin assessing the $18 Continuing Education
Regulatory Element Session Fee as of January 1, 2023 to coincide with
the effective date of the transition to an annual Regulatory Element
requirement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See note 3 above. On September 21, 2021, the SEC approved
amendments to FINRA Rules 1210 (Registration Requirements) and 1240
(Continuing Education Requirements) to, among other things, require
registered persons to complete the Regulatory Element of CE annually
by December 31 of each year, rather than every three years, and to
complete Regulatory Element content for each representative or
principal registration category that they hold. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 93097 (September 21, 2021), 86 FR 53358
(September 27, 2021) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2021-015).
The Regulatory Element is administered by FINRA and focuses on
regulatory requirements and industry standards. The proposed rule
change also included amendments to the Firm Element training, which
is provided by each firm annually to its registered persons and
focuses on securities products, services and strategies the firm
offers, firm policies and industry trends.
    \6\ FINRA notes that the proposed $18 annual fee is comparable
to the current $55 fee over a three-year period. Moreover, the
proposed fee for the annual Regulatory Element would be the same for
all registered persons, regardless of the amount of annual content
that they would be required to complete (that is, an individual who
holds multiple registrations would be subject to the same proposed
$18 annual fee as an individual who holds a single registration).
See note 3 above.
    \7\ The Exchange would file to remove the rule text concerning
the $55 fee once the $18 fee becomes operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $100.00 continuing education
fee for each individual who is required to complete the S101 or S201.
This fee applied to continuing education programs administered at test
centers. In 2015, FINRA filed to end test center delivery of the
Regulatory Element.\8\ Effective October 1, 2015, Web-based delivery
has been available for the Regulatory Element. The revised fee of $18
is a Web-based delivery. The Exchange proposes to remove the outdated
continuing education fee of $100 from its Pricing Schedule related to
test center delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31,
2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-015) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Provide a Web-based Delivery
Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing
Education Requirements). FINRA phased out the test center delivery
as of July 1, 2016. See FINRA Information Notice dated May 16, 2016
(https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051616).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Maintaining
Qualifications Program (``MQP'') Fee of $100 fee for each individual
electing to participate in the continuing education program, following
the termination of a registration category, under FINRA Rule 1240(c)
for each year that such individual is participating in the program.
Individuals who elect to participate in the MQP within two years from
the termination of a registration would also be assessed any accrued
annual fee. The proposed annual fee would be assessed at the time an
eligible individual elects to participate in the continuing education
program under FINRA Rule 1240(c) and thereafter annually each year that
the individual continues in the program. This fee is paid directly to
FINRA. FINRA indicated in the Continuing Education Fee Filing that it
would begin assessing the $100 MQP fee as of January 31, 2022.
    With respect to the rule text, the current $55 Continuing Education
Fee is being reworded to reflect the elimination of the $100 fee and
renamed the ``Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee.''
The $55 will remain in effect until January 1, 2023 so it is being
retained in the Pricing Scheduled with a note that ``This fee will be
amended on January 1, 2023 as noted below.''
    The FINRA Fees are user-based and there is no distinction in the
cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a Non-FINRA
member. Accordingly, the proposed fees mirror those currently assessed
by FINRA.
Technical Amendment
    The Exchange also proposes to make a technical amendment within the
FINRA Web CRD Fees to the following sentence, ``$110-For the additional
processing of each initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that
includes the initial reporting, amendment or certification of one of
more disclosure events or proceedings.'' The Exchange proposes to
change the word ``of'' to ``or.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to decrease the $55
Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee for all
Registrations to $18 in accordance with an adjustment to FINRA's
fees.\11\ The Exchange's rule text will reflect the current rates for
continuing education that will be assessed by FINRA as of January 1,
2023. The proposed fee is identical to a fee adopted by FINRA related
to its continuing education. The costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-
FINRA member engages in continuing education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating the outdated $100 fee for
continuing education is reasonable as test center delivery of the
Regulatory Element was phased out in 2016 and the continuing education
programs are no longer offered at testing centers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 8 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to adopt a new MQP Fee
of $100 for each individual electing to participate in the continuing
education program under FINRA Rule 1240(c) for each year that such
individual is participating in the program. Individuals who elect to
participate in the program within two years from the termination of a
registration would also be assessed any accrued annual fee. The
proposed fee is identical to a fee adopted by FINRA related to its
continuing education. The costs are borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA
member engages in continuing education.
    Further, the proposal is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will not be collecting or retaining
these fees, therefore, the Exchange will not be in a position to apply
them in an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory manner.
Technical Amendment
    The Exchange's proposal to make a technical amendment within the
FINRA Web CRD Fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it is a non-substantive amendment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that this proposal creates an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market
burden on competition as FINRA's fees apply to all market participants.
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal creates
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition as
the decreased Continuing Education Regulatory Element Session Fee for
all Registrations of $18 will be assessed by FINRA to all Members who
are required to complete

the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements
pursuant to Exchange General 4, Section 1240. Likewise, with respect to
the $100 MQP Fee, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal
creates an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on
competition because the fee will be assessed by FINRA to all
individuals electing to participate in the continuing education program
under FINRA Rule 1240(c) for each year that such individual is
participating in the program. Finally, eliminating the outdated $100
fee for continuing education does not create an unnecessary or
inappropriate intra-market burden on competition as test center
delivery of the Regulatory Element was phased out and the continuing
education programs are no longer offered at testing centers.\13\
Further, the proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition
because the Exchange will not be collecting or retaining these fees,
therefore, the Exchange will not be in a position to apply them in an
inequitable or unfairly discriminatory manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 8 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendment
    The Exchange's proposal to make a technical amendment within the
FINRA Web CRD Fees does not impose an undue burden on competition as it
is a non-substantive amendment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2022-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2022-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-ISE-2022-01 and
should be submitted on or before February 18, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01704 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15453]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1888-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Arizona; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arizona (FEMA-1888-DR), dated March 18, 2010,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 18, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arizona resulting from severe winter storms and flooding during
the period of January 18-22, 2010, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark A. Neveau, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arizona have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Apache, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, and
Yavapai Counties and the Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe,
Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache, Tohono O'odham Nation, and White
Mountain Apache Tribe for Public Assistance.
    All counties and Tribal Reservations within the State of Arizona
are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-6938 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10496-10498]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; Project Identifier AD-2020-00818-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-
80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-
80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-
80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B3F, CF6-80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F,
CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-
80C2D1F, CF6-80C2K1F and CF6-80C2L1F model turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by an inspection by the manufacturer that
revealed cracking of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1
disk. This proposed AD would require visual inspection and fluorescent
penetrant inspection (FPI) of the HPT thermal shield and, if cracking
is detected, removal from service of the HPT thermal shield, HPT rotor
stage 1 disk and HPT rotor stage 2 disk. The FAA is proposing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General
Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513)
552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: www.ge.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; Project Identifier
AD-2020-00818-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kevin
M. Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA was notified by the manufacturer that a crack on the HPT
rotor stage 1 disk was found during an inspection. Subsequent
investigation by the manufacturer determined that the crack on the HPT
rotor stage 1 disk was caused by increased stress on the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk as a result of flange-to-flange cracking on the HPT
thermal shield. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, failure of the HPT rotor stage 2
disk, uncontained release of the HPT rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed ESM 72-53-00 High Pressure Turbine Rotor
Assembly--Disassembly (ESM 72-53-00) from the GE CF6-80A Engine Manual
GEK72501--Rev 89, dated February 15, 2020. ESM 72-53-00 describes
procedures for the removal of the HPT thermal shield, the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspection and FPI
of the HPT thermal shield at every piece part opportunity of the HPT
rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or the HPT thermal shield.
Depending on the results of the inspections, this proposed AD requires
the removal from service of the HPT thermal shield, HPT rotor stage 1
disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 1,084 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform FPI and visual inspection of  2 work-hours x $85 per               $0             $170         $184,280
 HPT thermal shield.                   hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT thermal shield....................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $209,600        $209,770
                                                 $170.
Replace HPT rotor stage 1 disk................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =            799,700         799,870
                                                 $170.
Replace HPT rotor stage 2 disk................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =            364,600         364,770
                                                 $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that
is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; Project
Identifier AD-2020-00818-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 8, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A,
CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3,
CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-
80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B3F, CF6-
80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-
80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-80C2K1F and
CF6-80C2L1F model turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an inspection by the manufacturer that
revealed cracking of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1
disk, caused by initial flange-to-flange cracking on the HPT thermal
shield between the HPT rotor stage 1 disk and the HPT rotor stage 2
disk. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in uncontained release of the HPT
rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, damage to the engine, and damage to
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, at every piece-part
exposure of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or
the HPT thermal shield, perform a visual inspection and a
fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the HPT thermal shield.
    (2) During any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD, if a crack extending through either the forward or aft flange of
the HPT thermal shield is detected, remove the HPT thermal shield,
the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk from
service.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    Do not install onto any engine an HPT rotor stage 1 disk or HPT
rotor stage 2 disk that was removed from service due to the
requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' is when the
HPT rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or HPT thermal
shield is separated from their mating rotor parts within the HPT
rotor module.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
Related Information. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website: www.ge.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781) 238-7759.

    Issued on January 20, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-01814 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42075-42076]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17384]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360; FRL-9930-62-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of revising the definition of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). In the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0360 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0360. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the

comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
``Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds,'' that is
located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register publication.

    Dated: July 7, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-17384 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 49233-49234]
[DOCID:fr20au08-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-37]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking
relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final
disposition.

DATE: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before September 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0370 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Docket: To read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Frances Shaver<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

PETITIONS FOR EXEMPTION

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0370.
    Petitioner: Federal Express Corporation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 121.651(b)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: FedEx seeks an exemption from Sec.
121.651(b)(2) which would allow for a FAA-certified Enhanced Flight
Vision System (EFVS) equipped FedEx aircraft and a properly trained
FedEx flight crew to continue an approach past the final approach fix,
or where the final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach
segment of a straight-in instrument approach procedure--even if the
latest weather report for that airport issued by the U.S. National
Weather Service, a source approved by the Administrator, reports the
visibility to be less than the visibility minimums for that procedure.

[FR Doc. E8-19237 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29184]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM93-11-000]

Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index
for Finished Goods

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil
pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that
establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the
index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), plus two point six
five percent (PPI-FG + 2.65). The Commission determined in an ``Order
Establishing Index For Oil Price Change Ceiling Levels'' issued
December 16, 2010, that PPI-FG + 2.65 is the appropriate oil pricing
index factor for pipelines to use for the five-year period commencing
July 1, 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 133 FERC ] 61,228 at P 1 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually,
an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG, after the
Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each
calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 194.2 for
2012 and 196.6 for 2013.\2\ Thus, the percent change (expressed as a
decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2012 to 2013, plus 2.65
percent, is positive 0.038858.\3\ Oil pipelines must multiply their
July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014, index ceiling levels by positive
1.038858 \4\ to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1, 2014,
through June 30, 2015, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For guidance
in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12 month period beginning
January 1, l995,\5\ see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC ] 61,416 at
n.6 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure
in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the
Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-
691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data
supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the
Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data,
scroll down to ``PPI Databases'' and click on ``Top Picks'' of the
Commodity Data including ``headline'' FD-ID indexes (Producer Price
Index--PPI). At the next screen, under the heading ``Producer Price
Index Commodity Data,'' select the box, ``Finished goods--
WPUSOP3000,'' then scroll to the bottom of this screen and click on
Retrieve data.
    \3\ [196.6-194.2]/194.2 = 0.012358 + 0.0265 = 0.038858
    \4\ 1 + 0.038858 = 1.038858
    \5\ For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the
Commission, see the Commission's Web site,  http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info/pipeline-index.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the Internet through
FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference
Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time)
at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The full text
of this Notice is available on FERC's Home Page at the eLibrary link.
To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding
the last three digits of this document in the docket number field and
follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please
contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free)
or<PHONE_NUMBER> (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov), or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail the Public
Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 14, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11717 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Commenter 0214 stated that the EPA erred in relying on its GHG Abatement Measure TSD (which was developed to support the Agency's section 111(d) Proposed Guidelines) as it primarily analyzed national annual average CO2 emission rates which do not support unit-specific standards. The commenter stated that the GHG Abatement Measures TSD, thus, mutes unit-level CO2 emission rate variability; for example, the net CO2 emission rates of the commenter's coal-fired units show significant CO2 emission rate variability at the unit level. The commenter included figures in their submission to illustrate the unit-level variability. The commenter stated that EPA's assumptions regarding nation-wide emission rate averages are a poor estimate for what a single modified boiler could achieve nor does the GHG Abatement Measures TSD provide any data resembling EPA's proposed compliance criteria (i.e., 12-operating month rolling average net CO2 emission rate data). The commenter stated that, thus, no support is provided to justify the achievability of the Agency's proposed standards for modified boilers and IGCC units.
Commenter 0291 stated EPA cannot reasonably assume that any specific level of emission reduction can be achieved across the board by EGUs undertaking a modification. Commenter said the level of additional emission reductions that can be obtained from a source undergoing a modification can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on: (1) the current level of heat-rate efficiency at which the unit operates; (2) the nature of the modification being undertaken; (3) the nature of previous modifications made and the emission reductions achieved during such earlier modifications: (4) the cost and burden of obtaining additional emission reductions relative to the amount of additional emission reductions achievable: and (5) the effect of such additional reduction-related requirements on the continuing ability of the unit to provide a reliable source of power, rather than specifying any across-the-board numeric emission reduction goal to be obtained by EGUs undertaking a modification, EPA should instead adopt a standard that allows for a state determination, on a case -by-case basis, of what emission reductions are possible and reasonable after consideration of the above five factors.
The EPA has properly finalized 111(b) standards of performance for reconstructed units  -  rather than setting up a case-by-case determination of the final standard.  The EPA also has not proposed to  -  nor finalized  -  any changes to 40 CFR 60.15 provisions for reconstructed sources.
Need for subcategories
Regarding EPA's claims of the cost of BSER and the commensurate improvements in efficiency, Commenter 0169 stated that for a newly constructed unit, it does not matter if the best practices are high cost, low cost, or no cost, if the unit has been designed and built with those options already included. The commenter stated that as a newly-constructed, technologically advanced, stand-alone unit, their unit is disproportionately affected by presuming that either a 2 or 4 percent reduction in CO2 emissions is achievable. The commenter stated that this demonstrates the need for sub-categorization of units within the Modified Source Rule, giving newly constructed units a separate performance standard than older units; in fact, these newer units should set the bar for BSER.
Commenter 0169 stated that for a newly constructed unit, it does not matter if the best practices are high cost, low cost, or no cost, if the unit has been designed and built with those options already included, as the commenter has. The commenter stated that as a newly-constructed, technologically advanced, stand-alone unit, they are disproportionately affected by presuming that either a 2 or 4 percent reduction in CO2 emissions is achievable. Both of these demonstrate the need for sub-categorization of units within the Modified Source Rule, giving newly constructed units a separate performance standard than older units. In fact, these newer units should set the bar for BSER. In a footnote, the commenter stated that the GHG Abatement TSD does not support EPA's conclusion in this context. EPA prepared the GHG Abatement TSD to demonstrate in the ESPS docket the available average heat rate improvements compared to 2012 values for existing EGUs; yet EPA attempts to use that same analysis to demonstrate that individual units which perform modifications can reduce emissions an additional 2 percent beyond their best demonstrated historical performance from 2002 through the time of the modification.
This comment addresses standards for modified EGUs  -  which have been addressed in Chapter 6 of this RTC. The final standards for modified sources reflect the best historical performance of the affected source itself and therefore there is no need to subcategorize by size, fuel-type, location, or boiler type.
Subcategorize by fuel type and boiler configuration
Commenter 0255 stated that EPA should subcategorize the modified [sic] boiler carbon dioxide intensity floor for fuel type and boiler configurations. The commenter stated that a limit of 1,900 lb CO2/MWh-net is not appropriate for plants that fire lower-ranked fuels such as lignite. The commenter stated that under EPA's CPP, North Dakota power plants would have to achieve an intensity goal of 2,226 lb CO2/MWh-net, a much more reasonable floor for pulverized coal boilers firing North Dakota lignite fuel; cyclone-fired boilers may require an even higher floor.
Commenter 0222 stated that the EPA proposes to group utility boilers, mainly coal- and lignite-fired power plants, into the same source category as IGCC units. The commenter stated that traditional coal-fired power plants are in a completely different class and are of an entirely different type than IGCC units and the differences in generation technologies result in different emissions profiles, including differences in the rate of CO2 emissions. The commenter stated that like the lignite category, the distinction between coal-fired power plants and IGCC units was explicitly recognized in the MATS Rule, in which the IGCC category was subject to distinct emissions limits, recognizing these differences in generation technologies. The commenter stated that in the New Source Rule 111(b) proposal, EPA proposed creating a separate subpart (subpart TTTT) which would separate utility boilers and IGCC units into different categories; this new subpart is evidence of EPA's own recognition that traditional coal and lignite-fired power plants should not be grouped into a single category with IGCC power plants. The commenter stated that for the reasons discussed in the MATS Rule and New Source Rule Proposal, the EPA must not group traditional coal- and lignite-fired generation units with IGCC units; the differences between the technologies are too great and necessitate a separate subcategory.
Triggering the reconstruction provision is a significant economic hurdle - and it has only rarely been done. However, in the event that a unit does trigger the reconstruction provisions, the reconstructed unit would not be required implement any particular technology or take any specific actions. Rather the reconstructed unit must meet a standard of performance consistent with the emission reductions achieved by the BSER. Owners/operators can do so by installing a new well-performing boiler, or by refurbishing an existing boiler in order to meet the final standard. Owners/operators can also take advantage of other options to further reduce emissions and meet the final standard of performance  -  such as coal drying (for lignite-fired units) or natural gas co-firing which has long been recognized as an option for coal-fired boilers to reduce emissions of air pollutants. In any case, per 40 CFR 60.15, if the owner/operator can demonstrate it is not "technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards set forth in this part", then it would not trigger the reconstruction provisions.
Identify appropriate BSER for modified/reconstructed sources and apply to determine standards of performance achievable by the source category
Commenter 0214 stated that they are concerned that establishing a source category-wide, or even subcategory-wide, numerical standard that is achievable by most potentially affected units is likely impossible, given the significant variability from unit to unit, and even at the same unit from year to year. The commenter stated that if EPA attempts to develop appropriate separate standards of performance for modified and reconstructed coal-fired and natural gas-fired units it must: (1) identify an appropriate BSER and (2) apply that BSER to determine standards of performance that are achievable by the source category.
The EPA has identified separate standards for modified and reconstructed sources based on the determination of different BSERs for each category.