[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50922-50926]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19610]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92882; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

September 7, 2021.
    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 August 23, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') 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 the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate the per share credit associated
with certain Retail Orders that add and remove liquidity. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective August 23, 2021. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to eliminate the
per share credit associated with certain Retail Orders \4\ that add and
remove liquidity. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective August 23, 2021.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
    \5\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
August 9, 2021 (SR-NYSEArca-2021-72). SR-NYSEArca-2021-72 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \7\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\8\ numerous alternative trading systems,\9\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 17% market share.\10\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \8\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \9\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders is
even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-
exchange venues.
    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange
venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange.
Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange
transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing
for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable.
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established Retail Order Step-Up tiers,\12\ which are designed to
provide an incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders to the
Exchange by providing higher credits for adding liquidity correlated to
an ETP Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange.
Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tiers, ETP Holders also do not pay a fee
when such Retail Orders have a time-in-force of Day and remove
liquidity from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Retail Order Tier, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, Retail
Order Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 on the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the per share credit associated
with the execution of orders that are internalized.\13\ An internalized
retail order execution is a trade where two Retail Orders that trade
against each other share the same Market Participant Identifier
(``MPID''). Under the proposal, for Retail Orders that are
internalized, the Exchange would not provide the current rebate and
would continue to not charge a fee for orders that qualify for the
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 and Retail
Order Step-Up Tier 3 pricing tiers. More specifically, the Exchange
proposes to not charge a fee or pay a credit for Retail Orders where
each side of the executed order (1) shares the same MPID and (2) is a
Retail Order with a time-in-force of Day. The proposed rule change
would not create new means of submitting orders to the Exchange nor
would it permit ETP Holders to circumvent the Exchange's order priority
rules. The Exchange's priority rules would continue to apply as they
currently do with respect to the execution of Retail Orders that are
the subject of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This occurs when two orders presented to the Exchange from
the same ETP Holder (i.e., MPID) are presented separately and not in
a paired manner, but nonetheless inadvertently match with one
another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 pricing tier, such orders
currently receive a credit of $0.0038 per share for adding liquidity
and do not pay a fee for removing liquidity. Under the Retail Order
Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier, such orders currently receive a credit of
$0.0035 per share for adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for
removing liquidity. Lastly, under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3
pricing tier, such orders currently receive a credit of $0.0036 per
share for adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for removing liquidity.
When both sides of an execution are not Retail Orders or do not share
the same MPID, the Exchange will continue to not charge a fee for
removing liquidity and will continue to provide the credits noted
above. The proposed rule change would not impact orders that qualify
for the Retail Order pricing tier that are internalized. Such orders
would continue to receive a credit of $0.0033 per share for providing
liquidity and would continue to pay a fee of $0.0030 per share for
removing liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 pricing tiers, such orders
would pay a fee of $0.0029 per share in Tape B securities. See Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\16\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to Retail Orders,
ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such
order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably constrain
exchange transaction fees that relate to Retail Orders on an exchange.
Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a
direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed elimination
of credits is reasonable because the Exchange has determined to no
longer provide credits for Retail Orders that are internalized. With
this proposed rule change, the Exchange is eliminating credits only for
a subset of Retail Orders, i.e., orders that are internalized. The
Exchange currently provides credits for Retail Orders that provide
liquidity that other market participants can interact with. Retail
Orders that are internalized, on the other hand, do not share that
characteristic and therefore, the Exchange has determined not to
provide credits for such orders. The Exchange notes that market
participants are free to shift their order flow to competing venues if
they believe other markets offer more favorable fees and credits.
Additionally, the proposed rule change would apply only to a subset of
Retail Orders directed to the Exchange by ETP Holders, i.e., those that
share the same MPID and that add and remove retail liquidity. All other
Retail Orders would continue to be subject to current fees and credits.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to no longer provide credits
for certain types of orders transacted on the Exchange because the
Exchange is not required to provide such credits. As noted above, the
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate credits for Retail
Orders that are internalized because the pricing incentive currently in
place is intended to attract liquidity that other market participants
can interact with. The Exchange is not required to provide credits for
activity that it believes does not accrue liquidity on the Exchange for
the benefit of other market participants. The Exchange notes that other
markets have utilized a similar basis for eliminating rebates. In
particular, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') recently eliminated the
rebate applied to orders in securities priced below $1.00 because, as
BZX noted, it ``no longer wishes to, nor is it required to, provide
such a rebate.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92013 (May 25,
2021), 86 FR 29312 (June 1, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, despite the removal of the credits, ETP
Holders may continue to direct orders to the Exchange that may
otherwise be internalized off-exchange, which would contribute to a
deeper, more liquid market and provide even more execution
opportunities for market participants.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposal is an equitable allocation of
fees among its market participants because all ETP Holders that
participate on the Exchange will be able to internalize their Retail
Orders on the Exchange at no cost, i.e., they would not receive any
credit or pay any fee for the execution of Retail Orders that are
internalized. Notwithstanding the elimination of credits for Retail
Orders that are internalized under Retail Order Step-Up Tiers 1-3, the
Exchange believes it would continue to be an attractive venue for ETP
Holders because they would still be able to execute Retail Orders that
are internalized at no cost. However, without having a view of ETP
Holders' activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether the Exchange's current fee
structure would result in any ETP Holder sending their Retail Orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that its fee structure for Retail
Orders that are not internalized should incentivize ETP Holders to
continue to send such orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot
predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of
this opportunity but additional Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
on the Exchange.
    The Exchange further notes that the market for attracting Retail
Orders remains competitive. For example, until recently, CBOE EDGX
Equities, Inc. (``EDGX'') charged its members an internalization fee of
$0.00050 per share for orders, including Retail Orders, that add
liquidity and a fee of $0.00050 per share for orders, including Retail
Orders, that remove liquidity if such members did not have an adding
ADV of 10,000,000 shares.\19\ As a result of the recent EDGX fee
change, EDGX now pays a rebate for Retail Orders that ranges between
$0.0032 per share and $0.0037 per share. The Exchange believes that its
fee structure for Retail Orders that are not internalized or do not
qualify for Retail Order Step-Up Tiers 1-3 should continue to
incentivize ETP Holders to send such orders to the Exchange.
Specifically, under the Exchange's step up tiers for Retail Orders, ETP
Holders can receive more favorable credits that range between $0.0035
per share and $0.0038 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92445 (July 20,
2021), 86 FR 40097 (July 26, 2021) (SR-CboeEDGX-2021-033).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders would continue to not pay
any fees for Retail Orders that are internalized. Further, the Exchange
believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all ETP Holders.
Notwithstanding the elimination of credits for Retail Orders that are
internalized under the Retail Order Step-Up Tiers 1-3, the Exchange
believes that its current fee structure,

which provides rebates for Retail Orders when such orders provide
liquidity and interact with other participants, should provide a
sufficient incentive for ETP Holders to direct their Retail Orders to
the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
because maintaining the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed
securities that are executed on a registered national securities
exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange
execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the
fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange also believes that nothing about its
proposed pricing model for Retail Orders that are internalized is
inherently unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that was
employed by one of the Exchange's competitors for many years.\20\
Despite the elimination of the credits, the Exchange believes its fee
structure incentivizes retail trading on a transparent market, thus
enhances price discovery and improves the overall quality of the equity
markets. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders are
free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 667662 (April
6, 2012), 77 FR 22053 (April 12, 2021) (SR-EDGX-2012-12). See also
supra, note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal
and non-discriminatory basis. All ETP Holders on the Exchange that
qualify for the Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1-3 whose Retail Orders are
internalized would no longer receive credits and would continue to not
pay a fee. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule change will
not adversely impact any ETP Holder's ability to qualify for other
reduced fee or enhanced rebate tiers. Lastly, the submission of Retail
Orders is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to
submit Retail Orders and, if they do, the extent of its activity in
this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\21\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that, despite the elimination of credits for Retail Orders that are
internalized under the Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1-3, the resulting
fee structure would continue to incentivize the submission of Retail
Orders to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order execution
opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed change applies to all ETP Holders equally in
that all ETP Holders would be able to internalize Retail Orders on the
Exchange at no cost, i.e., they would receive no credit or pay any fee.
The Exchange believes that the resulting fee structure would continue
to incentivize market participants to submit Retail Orders that are
internalized for execution on a public and transparent market rather
than on an off-exchange venue because ETP Holders would be able to
transact such orders at no cost. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The
elimination of credits for Retail Orders that are internalized under
the Retail Order Step Up Tiers 1-3 would impact all similarly-situated
ETP Holders on an equal basis, and, as such, the proposed change would
not impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants
on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange's market share of
intraday trading (i.e., excluding auctions) is currently less than 10%.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe
this proposed fee change would impose any burden on intermarket
competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \24\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-74 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 No. NYSEArca-2021-74. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. NYSEArca-2021-74, and should be submitted on
or before October 4, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19610 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2016-2018]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00011]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0696; FRL-9921-38-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the
2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We
are approving this document under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on February 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0696 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On October 29, 2014 (79 FR 64353), EPA proposed to approve the
following document into the California SIP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Local agency          Document             Adopted         Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD........  2014 Reasonably                6/10/14          7/18/14
                 Available Control
                 Technology (RACT)
                 State Implementation
                 Plan (SIP) Revision
                 (``2014 RACT SIP'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VCAPCD's submittal also included the following negative
declarations which the District certified that it had no sources
subject to the control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CTG source category                CTG reference document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace.........................  EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and
                                     MACT
Automobile and Light-duty Trucks,   EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
 Surface Coating of.                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.
                                    EPA 453/R-08-006, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Automobile and Light-
                                     Duty Truck Assembly Coatings.
Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of  EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.

Flat Wood Paneling, Surface         EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of
 Coating of.                         Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     VII: Factory Surface Coating of
                                     Flat Wood Paneling.
                                    EPA-453/R-06-004, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling
                                     Coatings.
Flexible Packaging Printing.......  EPA-453/R-06-003, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Flexible Package
                                     Printing.
Large Appliances, Surface Coating   EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of
 of.                                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     V: Surface Coating of Large
                                     Appliances.
                                    EPA 453/R-07-004, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Large Appliance
                                     Coatings.
Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for    EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of
 Insulation of.                      Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     IV: Surface Coating of Insulation
                                     of Magnet Wire.
Metal Furniture Coatings..........  EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     III: Surface Coating of Metal
                                     Furniture.
                                    EPA 453/R-07-005, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Metal Furniture
                                     Coatings.
Paper, Film and Foil Coatings.....  EPA 453/R-07-003, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Paper, Film, and
                                     Foil Coatings.
Petroleum Refineries..............  EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of
                                     Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                     Wastewater Separators, and Process
                                     Unit Turnarounds.
                                    EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing.....  EPA 453/R-08-004, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
                                     Manufacturing Materials.
Industrial Adhesives..............  EPA 453/R-08-005, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Miscellaneous
                                     Industrial Adhesives.
Pharmaceutical Products...........  EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Synthesized
                                     Pharmaceutical Products.
Pneumatic Rubber Tires,             EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of
 Manufacture of.                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
                                     Tires.
Polyester Resin...................  EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Manufacture of High-Density
                                     Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
                                     Polystyrene Resins.
                                    EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                     Equipment.
Synthetic Organic Chemical          EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of
 Manufacturing.                      Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Air Oxidation Processes in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
                                    EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Reactor Processes and
                                     Distillation Operations in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners....  EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III.D. of the preamble to EPA's proposed rule to implement
the 2008 NAAQS (78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013) states in part that ``RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations that there are no sources in the nonattainment area
covered by a specific CTG source category.'' We proposed to approve
VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP and negative declarations because we determined
that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements and the RACT SIP
requirements discussed in EPA's proposed rule to implement the 2008
NAAQS for ozone. Our proposed action contains more information on the
submitted document and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this document, including
the negative declarations into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct

costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 16, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(449) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (449) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on July 18, 2014 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation
Plan Revision (2014 RACT SIP) as adopted on June 10, 2014 (``2014 RACT
SIP'').

0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(10)(i), removing ``(i)'' and adding in its place
``(i)''; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(10)(ii).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.222  Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Negative declarations for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard: EPA-
453/R-97-004 Aerospace CTG and MACT; EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume II:
Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-
Duty Trucks; EPA 453/R-08-006 Control Techniques Guidelines for
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; EPA-450/2-78-032,
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling;
EPA-453/R-06-004, Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings; EPA-453/R-06-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible
Package Printing; EPA-450/2-77-034 Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume V: Surface Coating
of Large Appliances; EPA 453/R-07-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for
Large Appliance Coatings; EPA-450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume IV: Surface Coating
of Insulation of Magnet Wire; EPA-450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume III: Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture; EPA 453/R-07-005 Control Techniques
Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings; EPA 453/R-07-003 Control
Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; EPA-450/2-77-
025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater
Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds; EPA-450/2-78-036 Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment; EPA
453/R-08-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials; EPA 453/R-08-005 Control Techniques Guidelines
for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; EPA-450/2-78-029 Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products; EPA-450/2-78-030 Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires; EPA-450/3-83-008
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of
High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins; EPA-
450/3-83-006 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic
Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment; EPA-450/3-
84-015 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air
Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry; EPA-450/4-91-031 Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; EPA-450/3-82-009
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry
Cleaners were submitted on July 18, 2014 and adopted on June 10, 2014.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00011 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65142-65144]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1005; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-27-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6C-67C turboshaft
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by five reported incidents of
second stage power turbine (PT) disk damage. This proposed AD would
require initial and repetitive borescope inspections to verify the
presence of a retaining ring securing the PT baffle located near the
second stage PT disk. If the engine fails the inspection, this proposed
AD would also require removing the engine from service before further
flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the PT disk
which, if undetected, could cause uncontained PT disk failure and loss
of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
www.pwc.ca. You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1005;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-27-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada,
has issued Canada AD CF-2012-24, dated August 2, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been 5 reported incidents of second stage Power
Turbine (PT) disk damage caused by the PT baffle moving and
contacting the downstream side of the second stage PT disk. In two
of these incidents, the PT section of the engine failed to rotate
(on ground) as a result of baffle interference.
    An investigation has determined that the root cause for the PT
baffle displacement and the resultant PT disk damage was due to the
failure of the retaining ring that holds the PT baffle in its
intended position.

This proposed AD would only apply to P&WC PT6C-67C turboshaft engines
that have not had P&WC Service Bulletin No. PT6C-72-41056 incorporated.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    P&WC has issued Alert Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6C-72-A41060,
Revision 2, dated February 10, 2012. P&WC has also issued SB No. PT6C-
72-41056, Revision 4, dated February 13, 2012. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this proposed AD because we evaluated all
information provided by Canada and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive borescope
inspections to verify the presence of a retaining ring securing the PT
baffle located near the second stage PT disk. If the engine fails the
inspection, this proposed AD would also require removing the engine
from service before further flight.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    This proposed AD would not require engine modification at the next
scheduled overhaul, as the MCAI requires. This proposed AD would
require different inspection intervals from the MCAI. We changed the
inspection intervals to ensure that our proposed AD is clear for U.S.
operators.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 220 engines
installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about six hours per engine to perform one inspection
required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
We anticipate that two engines would fail the initial inspection.
Required parts would cost about $224,636 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $561,472. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty
coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

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

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (formerly Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.):
Docket No. FAA-2012-1005; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-27-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 24, 2012.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6C-67C
turboshaft engines that have not had P&WC Service Bulletin No. PT6C-
72-41056 incorporated.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by five reported incidents of second stage
power turbine (PT) disk damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent
damage to the PT disk which, if undetected, could cause uncontained
PT disk failure and loss of control of the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

(f) Borescope Inspections

    (1) Borescope-inspect to verify the presence of a retaining ring
securing the PT baffle located near the second stage PT disk, as
follows:
    (i) For engines with 2,200 PT cycles or more on the effective
date of this AD, inspect within 100 operating hours or 150 PT
cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For engines with more than 1,400 PT cycles but fewer than
2,200 PT cycles on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 250
operating hours, 350 PT cycles, or before exceeding 2,350 PT cycles,
whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For engines with 1,400 PT cycles or fewer on the effective
date of this AD, inspect within 500 operating hours, 750 PT cycles,
or before exceeding 1,750 PT cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Thereafter, repetitively borescope-inspect to verify the
presence of the retaining ring securing the PT baffle located near
the second stage PT disk, on or before an additional 600 flight
hours or 900 PT cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (3) Use P&WC Alert SB No. PT6C-72-A41060, Revision 2, dated
February 10, 2012, paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(6) to do the
borescope inspections required by this AD.
    (4) If the retaining ring is missing or the PT baffle is out of
position; then remove the engine from service before further flight.

(g) Optional Terminating Action

    Performing the engine improvement modifications in P&WC SB No.
PT6C-72-41056, Revision 4, dated February 13, 2012, paragraphs 3.A.
through 3.C.(12) and 3.E.(1) through 3.E.(15), is an optional
terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by this
AD.

(h) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (1) If you performed the initial borescope inspection before the
effective date of this AD using P&WC Special Instruction No. 45-
2011R2, dated July 27, 2011, or P&WC Alert SB No. PT6C-72-A41060,
dated August 12, 2011, or Revision 1, dated September 29, 2011, you
met the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (2) If you performed the engine modification in P&WC SB No.
PT6C-72-41056, dated April 1, 2011, or Revision 1, dated June 17,
2011, or Revision 2, dated October 6, 2011, or Rrevision 3, dated
February 3, 2012, you met the requirements of this AD and further
action is not required.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact James Lawrence,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199.

    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2012-24, dated August 2,
2012, for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
www.pwc.ca. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 16, 2012.
Carlos Pestana,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26277 Filed 10-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36210-36213]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0260]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; United States and Canadian Military Exercise Jump
Training, Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY. This rule is necessary to protect the United
States military and Canadian military participants as well as mariners
and vessels from the navigational and safety hazards associated with
the airborne deployment of U.S. and Canadian military personnel and
their associated equipment. This rule is intended to restrict vessels
from a portion of Lake Erie from the shoreline of Woodlawn Beach out
approximately one mile into Lake Erie during the airborne deployment
exercise.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. July 9,
2014, until 6:30 p.m. July 11, 2014. It will be enforced from 7:30 a.m.
until 6:30 p.m. daily from July 9, 2014 through July 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-

2014-0260]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule
Sec.  Section

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this TFR without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display,
which are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this TFR effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day on July 9-11, 2014 a
training operation will be taking place on Lake Erie Hamburg, NY. The
Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that airborne deployment of
military personnel may pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include parachutes and rigging equipment for the
parachuting military personnel floating on the water as well as the
potential for collisions between vessels and descending parachuting
military personnel.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of U.S. and Canadian military personnel, transient
watercraft and potential spectator vessels during this exercise. This
zone will be effective and enforced between 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
daily from July 9, 2014, through July 11, 2014. Radio broadcasts will
be made prior to all jump evolutions. This safety zone will encompass
all waters of Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY off of Woodlawn beach within a
zone described by the following position: Beginning at
42[deg]45'50.82'' N, 078[deg]53'23.46'' W, the point of origin, in a
straight line north to 42[deg]46'50.82'' N, 078[deg]53'23.46'' W then
in a straight line east to 42[deg]46'50.82'' N, 078[deg]52'01.68'' W
then in a straight line to south to the shoreline position
42[deg]46'17.84'' N, 078[deg]52'01.68'' W and continuing along the
shoreline south to 42[deg]45'50.82'' N, 078[deg]52'48.18'' W and
returning in a straight line west to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie between 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. daily starting on July 9-11, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 10 hours each day. The majority of the training exercises will be
conducted during the regular business week during normal daylight
business hours reducing the likelihood of affecting transient
recreational vessels. Traffic may be allowed to pass around the zone
with

the permission of the Captain of the Port before and after the
completion of each evolution. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1531-
1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000
(adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves
the establishment of a safety zone.
    A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and a preliminary
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0260 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0260  Safety Zone; US/CA Special Forces Jump Training,
Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY.

    (a) Location. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Erie, Hamburg, NY, off of Woodlawn beach within a zone described by the
following positions: Beginning at 42[deg]45'50.82'' N,
078[deg]53'23.46'' W, the point of origin, in a straight line north to
42[deg]46'50.82'' N, 078[deg]53'23.46'' W then

in a straight line east to 42[deg]46'50.82'' N, 078[deg]52'01.68'' W
then in a straight line to south to the shoreline position
42[deg]46'17.84'' N, 078[deg]52'01.68'' W and continuing along the
shoreline south to 42[deg]45'50.82'' N, 078[deg]52'48.18'' W and
returning in a straight line west to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced between 7:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. daily starting on July 9, 2014, through July 11,
2014.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this Sec.  165.T09-0260
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
    (d) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (c) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this
section, upon finding that operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of public or environmental safety.
    (f) Notification. The Captain of the Port Buffalo will notify the
public that the safety zones in this section is or will be enforced by
all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are
not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone is
cancelled.

    Dated: June 12, 2014.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2014-14896 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 5871]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-921-000]

Black Mesa Energy, 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
Black Mesa Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 13, 2023.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01858 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that e-cigarettes have been the miracle needed for myself to quit a 25 year long addiction to traditional cigarettes. My cravings for even nicotine have diminished considerably because I believe it wasn’t the nicotine causing the cravings as much as the hundreds of other chemicals and compounds found in a traditional cigarette that I had become addicted to. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Regards, Kelley Lively


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64063-64064]
[DOCID:fr07de09-876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-21-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

November 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 16, 2009, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company LLC (Transco) filed in the above referenced docket an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and
Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity authorizing Transco's Mobile Bay South II
Expansion Project (Project), an expansion of the capacity on Transco's
existing Mobile Bay Lateral under which Transco will provide 380,000
dekatherms per day (``Dt/d'') of incremental southbound firm
transportation service. The Project involves the installation of one
additional 8,180 horsepower compression unit and related auxiliary
equipment at Transco's mainline in Choctaw County, Alabama. Also, the
Project involves the installation of gas coolers, at the existing
Compression Station 83 in Mobile County, Alabama, and a new tap, valve,
and associated piping interconnect with an additional meter station to
be constructed, owned, and operated by Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC adjacent to its existing Citronelle meter station in
Mobile County, Alabama. Transco estimates that the Project facilities
will cost approximately $36.3 million. Transco has executed binding
precedent agreements for one hundred percent of the capacity created by
the Project facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the petition should be directed to counsel
for Transco Scott Turkington, Director, Rates & Regulatory,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251-1396 or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: December 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29036 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P