[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12123-12125]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68926; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 975NY in Part and Adding a New
Section To Address Errors That Involve Complex Orders

February 14, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 1, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 975NY in part and add a new
section to address errors that involve Complex Orders. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend certain existing provisions of
Rule 975NY (``Obvious Error Rule'').\4\ In addition, the Exchange is
proposing to add new language to Rule 975NY specific to how errors
involving Complex Orders will be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 975NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Existing Provisions of Rule 975NY
    The Exchange adopted the Obvious Error Rule to handle situations
where an order receives an erroneous execution, such as receiving a
price that is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price by a specified
amount.\5\ The Exchange is proposing several amendments to the Obvious
Error Rule. First, the Exchange is proposing to change the portion of
the rule that addresses errors in series with zero or no bid.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes replacing reference to ``series
quoted no bid on the Exchange'' with ``series where the NBBO bid is
zero.'' This is being done to ensure consistency in the language with
other aspects of the existing rule that reference NBBO for
determination of whether a transaction is deemed eligible for obvious
error treatment. The Exchange believes the NBBO provides greater
accuracy in determining the value or valueless of an option because it
takes into account interest from all market participants and not just
those active on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that ensuring
consistency throughout the rule text is important to help avoid
investor confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59472
(February 27, 2008), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (NYSEALTR-2008-14);
59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11803 (March 19, 2009) (NYSEALTR-2009-
24); 59736 (April 8, 2009), 74 FR 17708 (April 16, 2009) (NYSEAmex-
2009-10); 61394 (January 21, 2010), 75 FR 4435 (January 27, 2010)
(NYSEAmex-2010-02); 65505 (October 6, 2011), 76 FR 63966 (October
14, 2011) (NYSEAmex-2011-76); and 67037 (May 21, 2012), 77 FR 31415
(May 25, 2012) (NYSEAmex-2012-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the times in which certain
ATP Holders are required to notify the Exchange in order to have
transactions reviewed under Rule 975NY. Specifically the Exchange is
proposing to extend the time Market Makers have to notify the Exchange
of a potential error from five minutes to ten minutes. The Exchange
believes that the change is appropriate given the increase in the
number of options series, as well as the number of exchanges in
operation today. Market Makers providing liquidity on multiple
exchanges potentially need to call and speak with someone at each of
the nine exchanges to have transactions reviewed. As such, the existing
five minute time limit makes this impractical if not impossible and
therefore it is appropriate to extend the time limit to ten minutes.
The Exchange notes that at least one other exchange already provides
Market Makers with more than five minutes to request a review under
their obvious error rules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.25(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to extend the time ATP
Holders acting as agent for Customer orders have to notify the Exchange
of a potential error from twenty minutes to thirty minutes. The
Exchange believes that extending the time limit for Customer orders is
warranted due to the degree in which many Customers are

removed from the operation of the execution. For a Customer order, the
brokerage firm with which the customer has an account may not actually
be the routing or execution broker for the Customer's options trades.
It is fairly common for brokerage firms to route their Customer order
flow through a different Broker Dealer that employs a router that
weighs various best execution factors in arriving at a routing
decision. In such situations, Customers who receive a fill they want
reviewed under the obvious error rule must first call their brokerage
firm, who will in turn contact the broker-dealer that routed the order
to the Exchange for execution. ATP Holders have indicated to the
Exchange that Customers may need more than 20 minutes for their
requests for review to reach the Exchange. Other market participants,
such as Firms, non-member Market Makers, and Professional Customers
tend to route their own order flow directly to the Exchange and are not
as far removed from the actual execution. Hence the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to extend the time to request a review for ATP
Holders acting as agent for Customer orders given these facts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the Exchange acknowledges that extending the time a
party can notify the Exchange of a potential error can increase
uncertainty regarding the standing of a trade, it believes that such
uncertainty will be limited only to those trades that are so outside
of normal trading that they might qualify for obvious error
treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments To Address Complex Orders
    The Exchange also proposes adding new language to address Complex
Orders in the context of Rule 975NY. Presently, the Obvious Error Rule
is silent on how Complex Orders are handled under the bust and adjust
provisions of the rule. The Exchange wants to include language that
will give participants some degree of certainty regarding what they
should expect when legs of a Complex Order are eligible for obvious
error treatment. There are several scenarios in which Complex Orders
may be involved in a transaction that is reviewed under the Obvious
Error Rule. Each of those scenarios and the proposed approach will be
covered below:
    Scenario 1: A Complex Order trades with another Complex Order in
the Complex Order Book. Under this scenario, should any leg(s) upon
review qualify for obvious error treatment under the provisions of Rule
975NY, then all legs of the Complex Order will be busted unless both
parties mutually agree to an adjustment price.
    The Exchange believes that this approach is similar to rules of
other markets \8\ and appropriate due to several aspects unique to
Complex Orders. In particular, the Exchange notes that Complex Orders
often are used by participants to enter positions known as spreads that
entail limited risk relative to an outright naked sale of a put or
call. For example, buying 1 XYZ Dec 55 call and selling 1 XYZ Dec 50
call has risk limited to $5, less the premium received for the spread.
If the leg of the Complex Order consisting of the long 1 XYZ Dec 55
call was eligible to be busted, the ATP Holder would be left with a
riskier, naked short position in the single remaining leg of the
spread. Given this, the Exchange has decided that the best approach for
dealing with Complex Orders in the context of the Obvious Error Rule
will be to preserve the spread whenever possible. Therefore, when a
trade eligible for obvious error treatment has occurred that involves a
Complex Order trading with another Complex Order in the COB, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to bust all legs of the trade
involved unless both parties to the trade mutually agree to an
adjustment price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See PHLX Rule 1092(c)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scenario 2: A Complex Order trades with another Complex Order in
the Complex Order Book where one leg qualifies for the no-bid provision
of Rule 975NY(a)(6). If the only leg(s) of the Complex Order that
qualifies for obvious error treatment is pursuant to the no-bid
provisions of Rule 975NY(a)(6), then no legs of the Complex Order will
be busted (the trade stands as executed), unless both parties to the
trade mutually agree otherwise.
    The Exchange believes that busting trades solely the result of a
leg(s) of a Complex Order executing in a no-bid series could result in
abuse. In particular, by entering a spread priced slightly away from
the market, the entering party can increase the chance that one of the
legs will qualify for no-bid treatment upon execution. In such a
scenario, the entity entering the Complex Order would have a window of
time (equal to the notification provisions of the rule) to evaluate the
market before claiming relief under the Obvious Error Rule (which would
result in the busting of all legs). In order to prevent manipulation
and a potential increase in nullified trades, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to not permit obvious error treatment for those
situations where the only error occurred in a no-bid series.
    Scenario 3: A Complex Order trades with individual orders or quotes
in the Consolidated Book. In such situations, each executed leg will be
reviewed separately under Rule 975NY. As a result, it is possible that
after such a trade, only one leg of a Complex Order may meet the
Obvious Error threshold (resulting in a residual position of a single
leg). When a Complex Order receives executions in the Consolidated
Order Book, it is likely to involve multiple ATP Holders. Although the
Exchange prefers to avoid partial execution of a Complex Order, it does
not seek to nullify a valid execution in the Consolidated Order Book of
an ATP Holder who unknowingly interacted with a leg of a Complex Order.
While this is not a change from how the Exchange currently handles all
Complex Orders, language is being added to the Obvious Error Rule for
purposes of clarification.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\9\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change relating to the handling of
transactions in series quoted no bid at the NBBO will promote just and
equitable principles of trade by adding more certainty and consistency
to the obvious error. The proposed rule change to increase the time
limit for both Market Makers and ATP Holders acting as agent for
Customers to request a review of a transaction under the provisions of
Rule 975NY is designed to protect investors and the public interest.
Granting Market Makers more time to request a review of a trade for
obvious error treatment will ensure they are comfortable they can meet
the deadline. This comfort level should allow Market Makers to continue
to aggressively provide that liquidity in a transparent and non-
discriminatory manner to all participants which is in the public
interest. Further, ensuring Customers sufficient time to request a
review for trades is also consistent with investor protection and
furthering the public interest as it allows those market participants
furthest removed from the

point of execution time to evaluate each trade and have adequate time
to notify the Exchange of a potential error.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes that address
the handling of Complex Orders involved in obvious errors are also
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5), in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Detailing how Complex Orders
involved in obvious errors will be busted and/or adjusted is important
since it grants investors greater certainty. Preventing a market
participant from busting trades solely the result of a leg(s) of a
Complex Order executing in a no-bid series furthers the protection of
investors and the public interest by preventing potential abuse. In the
Exchange's view, the determination of whether an ``obvious error'' has
occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject
to specific and objective procedures. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change provides such objective guidelines for the
determination of whether an obvious price error has occurred.

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. To the contrary, the proposal
further promotes competition on the Exchange which should lead to
tighter, more efficient markets to the benefit of market participants
including public investors that engage in trading and hedging on the
Exchange, and thereby make the Exchange a desirable market vis a vis
other options exchanges.

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

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

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

    Within 45 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 90 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 or disapprove the 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12 and should
be submitted on or before March 14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03965 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13051]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1348-000]

The Dow Chemical Company; 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
The Dow Chemical Company'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 March 20, 2014.
    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 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: February 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04965 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48093-48095]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-6-000]

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Atlantic
Coast Pipeline Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues Related to New Alternatives Under Consideration

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is
issuing this supplemental notice (Notice) to provide landowners
potentially affected by additional pipeline route alternatives an
opportunity to comment on impacts associated with these newly
identified routes. The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for
conducting the environmental review of the ACP Project. The
Commission's staff will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)
that discusses the environmental impacts of the ACP Project. This EIS
will be used in part by the Commission to determine whether the ACP
Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    You have been identified as a landowner that may be affected by new
alternatives being considered. Information in this Notice is provided
to familiarize you with these new alternatives, the ACP Project as a
whole, and the Commission's environmental review process, and instruct
you on how to submit comments about the ACP Project and the
alternatives under consideration. This Notice is also being sent to
federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers in the vicinity
of these alternatives. We encourage elected officials and government
representatives to notify their constituents about the ACP Project and
inform them on how they can comment on their areas of concern. Please
note that comments on this Notice should be filed with the Commission
by September 4, 2015.
    If your property would be affected by one of the alternatives under
consideration, you should have already been contacted by an Atlantic
representative. An Atlantic representative may have also contacted you
or may contact you in the near future about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities or
request permission to perform environmental surveys on your property.
Some landowners may not be contacted if the alternative across their
property is found to be either not feasible or not environmentally
preferable to other alternatives being considered. If the Commission
approves the ACP Project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an
agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings
where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
    To help potentially affected landowners better understand the
Commission and its environmental review process, the ``For Citizens''
section of the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) provides information about
getting involved in FERC jurisdictional projects, and a citizens' guide
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need to Know?'' This guide addresses a number of frequently asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings.

Project Summary and Background

    The ACP Project would involve the construction and operation of 556
miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia,
Virginia, and North Carolina. The pipeline facilities associated with
the ACP Project would be comprised of four main components as follows:
     Approximately 292.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in
Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West
Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince
Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties,
Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina;
     approximately 181.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties, North Carolina;
     approximately 77.6 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral
pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; Greensville and
Southampton, Counties, Virginia; and the Cities of Suffolk and
Chesapeake, Virginia;
     approximately 3.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas
lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia; and
     approximately 1.0 mile of 16-inch-diameter natural gas
lateral pipeline in Greenville County, Virginia.
    In addition to the planned pipelines, Atlantic plans to construct
and operate three new compressor stations totaling 117,405 horsepower
of compression. These compressor stations would be located in Lewis
County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton
County, North Carolina. Atlantic would also install metering stations,
valves, pig launcher/receiver sites,\1\ and associated appurtenances
along the planned pipeline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) is planning to construct the

Supply Header Project (SHP), which we will review concurrently with the
ACP Project. The SHP would involve the construction and operation of
approximately 36.7 miles of pipeline loop \2\ and the modification of
existing compression facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The
pipeline facilities associated with the SHP would be comprised of two
main components: (1) Approximately 3.9 miles of 30-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's existing LN-25
pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; and (2) approximately
32.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's
existing TL-360 pipeline in Harrison, Doddridge, Tyler, and Wetzel
Counties, West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline ``loop'' is a segment of pipe constructed
parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the planned pipelines, Dominion plans to modify four
existing compressor stations in Westmoreland and Green Counties,
Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Dominion
would install new gas-fired turbines that would provide for a combined
increase of 77,230 horsepower of compression. Dominion would also
install new valves, pig launcher/receiver sites, and associated
appurtenances at these existing compressor station locations.
    The SHP and ACP Projects would be capable of delivering 1.5 billion
cubic feet of natural gas per day to eight planned distribution points
in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved,
construction of the projects is proposed to begin in September 2016.
    On November 13, 2014 the Commission's environmental staff approved
Atlantic's and Dominion's request to use the Commission Pre-filing
Process for the SHP and ACP Project. The purpose of the Pre-filing
Process is to encourage the early involvement of interested
stakeholders to identify and resolve project-related issues before an
application is filed with the Commission. On February 27, 2015 the
Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast
Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings.
    During the course of the Pre-filing Process, numerous concerns have
been expressed about the potential environmental impacts of the project
and the need to collocate the planned facilities with existing rights-
of-way. Based on the merits of these comments, and to ensure that
potential environmental impacts are minimized to the extent practical
and that public concerns are fully addressed during the Pre-filing
Process, additional alternatives have been identified and are being
considered.

Project Alternatives

    The following new alternatives are now being analyzed.
Illustrations of these alternatives are provided in Appendix 1.\3\
Detailed alternative route location information can be found on
Dominion's interactive web mapping application at https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/atlantic-coast-pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brunswick Route Alternative (Brunswick and Greensville Counties,
Virginia)

    The Brunswick Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's
planned route near AP-1 milepost (MP) 259 and extend south and for
approximately 20.9 miles before rejoining the planned route near AP-1
MP 277. The majority of the Brunswick Route Alternative would follow a
recently constructed electric transmission line. The Brunswick Route
Alternative would reduce the length of the planned AP-3 lateral
pipeline.

Boykins Route Alternative (Southampton County, Virginia)

    The Boykins Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's planned
route near AP-3 MP 14.5 and extend for approximately 13 miles in a
northeast direction before rejoining the planned AP-3 route at
approximate AP-3 MP 28. The majority of the Boykins Route Alternative
would follow an existing 115 kilovolt electric transmission line.

Franklin Route Alternative (Southampton and Isle of Wright Counties and
the Cities of Franklin and Suffolk, Virginia)

    The Franklin Route Alternative would deviate from Atlantic's
planned route near AP-3 MP 41 and extend for approximately 12.5 miles
in a easterly direction before rejoining the planned AP-3 route at
approximate AP-3 MP 53. The majority of the Franklin Route Alternative
would follow an existing 115 kilovolt electric transmission line.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the planned ACP Project and the three alternatives
identified above. We will consider all filed comments that are
suggested during the preparation of the EIS.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in a draft
EIS that will be placed in the public record, published, and
distributed to the public for comments. We will also hold public
comment meetings in the project area and will address comments on the
draft EIS in a final EIS. The final EIS will also be placed in the
public record, published, and distributed to the public. To ensure your
comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in
the Public Participation section on the following page.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic
properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects develop.
On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and

summarize the status of consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the alternatives presented above and about
the projects in general. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are considered
in a timely manner and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
September 4, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
appropriate project docket number (PF15-6-000 for the ACP Project) with
your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who
submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned projects.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Atlantic files an application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives formal applications for the projects.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the ACP Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF15-6). Be sure you
have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of 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. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19695 Filed 8-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37484-37485]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1119; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-76]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK,
in support of the airport's transition from visual flight rules (VFR)
to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1119 and
Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-76 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations 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.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations 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.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority, as it would establish Class E airspace to support IFR
operations at Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal after
considering the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western
Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    The Class E5 Airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish
Class E airspace at Tununak Airport, Tununak, AK, in support of the
airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations.
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
should be established to contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500
feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until they reach
1,200 feet above the surface. The proposed airspace design--which
extends 7.4 miles from the airport reference point to both the north
and south and includes a 3.4-mile extension to the west--would contain
these operations.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Tununak, AK [New]

Tununak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'10'' N, long. 165[deg]14'47'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.4-mile radius of the airport between the 258[deg] bearing
clockwise to the 306[deg] bearing, and within 2.5 miles east and 2.8
miles west of the 168[deg] bearing extending from the airport to 7.4
miles south, and within 1.9 miles east and 2.3 miles west of the
348[deg] bearing extending from the airport to 7.4 miles north.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 1, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-12111 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency, ORD 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2080 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Reliability, Validity, and Variability in Behavioral Determinants of Drinking Water Disinfection By Product Exposure 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2030.01 9. Keywords drinking water, DBPs, exposure determinants 10. Abstract This study aims to characterize the reliability, validity, and variability of questionnaire based information on water usage patterns collected in environmental epidemiologic studies. The study builds on a recently funded study entitled " Drinking Water Disinfectant By products and Spontaneous Abortion" funded by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation ( AWWARF) which was recently initiated. The present study will add a substudy component to the parent AWWARF study. It provides for reinterview of a 10% sample ( 300 women) of the parent study participants for a reliability substudy and an additional 10 % sample ( 300 women) for a validity substudy. The human behavioral aspects, i. e., water usage patterns over time, that will affect one's coming into contact with an ambient level of a particular chemical, is an important source of variability and this has not been well characterized in previous drinking water epidemiology studies. Better characterization of the reliability, variability, and validity of this information, generally obtained through recall in a questionnaire, will decrease uncertainties related to misclassification of the exposure variables and enhance our ability to more clearly interpret the validity and accuracy of reported study findings.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 600 b. Total annual responses 600 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100 % c. Total hours requested 525 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 525 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change ___ 0 2. Adjustment 525 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. P Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Once for some 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dr. Patricia Murphy Phone: ( 732) 906 6830 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 75561]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-479-000]

Great Bay Energy V, 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 Great Bay Energy V, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 December 26, 2013.
    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(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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: December 5, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29571 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21259-21262]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0100; Notice 2]

Nissan North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective

Devices, and Associated Equipment. Nissan filed a noncompliance report
dated August 26, 2020. Nissan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
September 18, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces the denial of Nissan's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Nissan has determined that certain MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor
vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Nissan filed a noncompliance
report dated August 26, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Nissan subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on September 18, 2020, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Nissan's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on March 24, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 15769). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0100.''

II. Motor Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 5,520 MY 2020 Nissan Sentra motor vehicles,
manufactured between November 26, 2019, and March 24, 2020, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Nissan explains that the noncompliance is that the right-hand LED
headlamp aim in the subject vehicle may be misaligned resulting in a
vertical gradient value less than 0.13 as required by paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition: Vertical gradient. The gradient of the
cutoff measured at either 2.5[deg] L or 2.0[deg] R must be not less
than 0.13 based on the procedure of S<IP_ADDRESS>.5.

V. Summary of Nissan's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section are the
views and arguments provided by Nissan and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. In its petition, Nissan describes the subject noncompliance
and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Nissan provided NHTSA with the
following:

    1. Nissan states that ``the supplier (Ichikoh) did not apply the
correct aiming logic when setting the head lamp aim parameters'' in
the subject vehicles and, ``[a]s a result, the right-hand LED
headlamp aim may be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient
value below 0.13.'' Nissan states that ``[a] lower G-Value will lead
to a headlamp cut line that is slightly less sharp.'' According to
Nissan, ``Ichikoh inspected 3,506 lamps and found 572 lamps with a
G-Value below 0.13. However, when the cut-off value is brought down
to two decimals instead of three (per the express requirement in
FMVSS No. 108), only 286 of the 3,506 lamps (about 8%) fall below
the 0.13 minimum threshold. Of the 286 lamps, 248 (about 87%) are at
a gradient value of 0.12.''
    2. According to Nissan, Ichikoh confirmed that, ``even when the
G-Value is below 0.13, all points of the Light Distribution achieve
the required specifications of FMVSS 108 for both the low and high
beam performance.'' Nissan attached to its petition test data from
Ichikoh regarding such photometric performance.
    3. Nissan states that it ``has not received any reports from the
field of customer complaints, warranty claims, crashes, injuries, or
fatalities related to this issue.''
    4. Nissan contends that ``[t]he purpose of the gradient
requirement is to assist in headlamp re-aiming.'' Nissan states that
``[t]he vehicles potentially affected by this issue were aimed
properly at the factory using a different aiming method. Therefore,
the only potential concern would relate to re-aiming performed after
the vehicle has been in use.'' Nissan stated that ``[a]iming of the
headlamps by a service technician in the field is an event that is
expected to occur infrequently. To confirm this, Nissan searched its
repair order database for repair orders on the previous generation
Sentra that involved re-aiming of the headlamps. Out of 1,389,330
vehicles, 161 repair orders were found that involved headlamp
aiming. This rate of repair would be 0.011% of vehicles. If the same
rate of repair is applied to the expected 420 vehicles in the
subject population [Nissan] would expect only 0.05 vehicles of the
subject population to require a re-aiming in the field.''
    5. Nissan asserts that ``[t]he difference in gradient values
between 0.12 and 0.13 does not materially affect the ability of a
service technician to properly aim the lamp in the rare case that
this would need to be done in the field.''
    6. ``Even if the lamps had to be re-aimed at some point,''
according to Nissan, ``it is unlikely the driver or other motorists
would notice any glare or observable difference in operation between
a fully compliant lamp and the subject lamps based on the conditions
described above.''

    Nissan concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. Public Comment

    NHTSA received one comment from the general public. The commenter
explains that they have owned vehicles manufactured by Nissan and
states that the noncompliance is not inconsequential. The comment does
not, however, substantively address issues relevant to Nissan's
petition with any specificity.

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

A. General Principles

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that
the issue is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints does
not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety

issue, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the
future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\4\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\5\ Indeed, the
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \5\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NHTSA's Response to Nissan's Petition

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of Nissan's petition and has decided
to deny the petition.
    The purpose of the gradient requirement is to allow for proper aim
of a visually/optically aimed headlamp. Failure to properly aim the
headlamp can result in glare to surrounding vehicles or less down road
visibility which can potentially lead to a crash.
    Nissan states that the supplier did not apply the correct aiming
logic when setting the headlamp aim parameters and, as a result, the
headlamp aim may be misaligned resulting in a vertical gradient value
less than 0.13. Nissan does not further describe the technical details
surrounding the process that led to the noncompliance, and it is
somewhat unclear as to what issue caused these lamps to have a gradient
below that permitted by the standard. Generally, the Agency understands
that vertical headlamp aim does not impact the value of the gradient
calculation (the mathematical description of the change in intensity
from one angular location to the next). The headlamp aim that is
``misaligned'' in the subject vehicles might be the horizontal aim,
which is permanently set during the manufacturing process. A permanent
horizontal misaim could result in the vertical scan line that is used
in the gradient calculation to be measured in a location other than
that intended by the beam pattern designer. In any case, the precise
process failure that led to the noncompliance is not necessary in the
Agency's analysis of the noncompliance impact on safety described
below.
    NHTSA reviewed the test data from Nissan's supplier, Ichikoh,
regarding photometric performance of the lower beam and upper beam with
G-values less than 0.13, and did not find it compelling. Nissan only
provided one set of measurements for one lamp. In addition, their
argument does not take into account the potential mis-aim which could
be caused by the non-compliant gradient. Furthermore, while Nissan
claimed that it is unlikely the driver or other motorists would notice
any glare or observable difference in operation between a fully
compliant lamp and the subject lamp, Nissan did not submit any data to
support this claim.
    NHTSA believes that any gradient less than the minimum requirement
of 0.13 can affect the ability of the lamp to be properly aimed. As
NHTSA has previously stated in the preamble to a final rule amending
FMVSS 108,\6\ and as provided as background in its associated notice of
proposed rulemaking,\7\ the gradient is based on a +/-0.1 degree
laboratory aim accuracy and a 0.25 degree field aim accuracy with
confidence limits of +/-2 sigma. A University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study \8\ provided the
information needed to establish the necessary gradient within the
defined confidence bounds. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Beam Pattern Task Force also conducted a study \9\ regarding visually
aimable headlamps in which they found the standard deviation of
vertical aim to be smaller than the standard deviation in the UMTRI
study. Based on the SAE Beam Pattern Task Force study, a NHTSA-
established advisory committee for regulatory negotiation to develop
recommended specifications for altering the lower beam patterns of
FMVSS 108 concluded that a gradient of 0.13 would satisfy the
committee's goal for field aim accuracy.\10\ Nissan did not provide
data to support that the subject headlamps meet the photometric
requirements even when misaimed, which is the potential consequence of
not meeting the gradient requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment; Final Rule; 62 FR 10710 (Mar. 10,
1997).
    \7\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps,
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 61 FR 36334 (July 10, 1996).
    \8\ See Visual Aiming of European and U.S. Low-Beam Headlamps,
Report No. UMTRI-91-34, by Sivak, Flannagan, Chandra, and Gellatly
(Nov. 1991), available at https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/936.
    \9\ See Harmonized Vehicle Headlamp Performance Requirements
(first issued Jan. 1, 1995), available at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1735_201102/.
    \10\ The committee's consensus was reflected in NHTSA's final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also not persuaded by Nissan's contention that the
noncompliance involved here does not have a safety impact because it is
relatively rare for headlamps to be re-aimed. Nissan's data supporting
this claim, which relied on dealer repair records for the previous
generation Sentra, is not, in NHTSA's view, representative. As vehicles
age and their warranties expire, consumers are less likely to have
service performed at a dealership. Instances of headlight service at
independent garages and body shops also would not be included in
Nissan's survey. And in any event, as stated above, arguments that only
a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are
affected have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality
petition. For similar reasons, also unpersuasive is the number of lamps
that exhibit a G-Value less than the 0.13 minimum threshold, or that
Nissan has not received any reports from the field of customer
complaints, warranty claims, crashes, injuries, or fatalities related
to this issue.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Nissan
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Nissan's petition is hereby denied, and Nissan is obligated to provide
notification of, and free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-07646 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34975-34976]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Use of Certain Personal Oxygen
Concentrator (POC) Devices on Board Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comrnents about our intention to
request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. The rule requires passengers who intend to use
an approved POC to present a physician statement before boarding.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Use of Certain Personal Oxygen Concentrator (POC) Devices on
Board Aircraft.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0702.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 1,735,000 respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 6 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 172,694 hours annually.
    Abstract: The rule requires passengers who intend to use an
approved POC to

present a physician statement before boarding. The flight crew must
then inform the pilot-in-command that a POC is on board.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-13768 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M