[Federal Register: November 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 65928]
[DOCID:fr01no05-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1604-DR]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Mississippi (FEMA-1604-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 22, 2005, the President amended the cost sharing
arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to R. David Paulison,
Acting Director Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from Hurricane Katrina on August 29-October
14, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special
conditions are warranted regarding the cost sharing arrangements
concerning Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206
(the Stafford Act).
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of August 29, 2005, and
September 1, 2005, to authorize Federal funds for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program, at 100
percent of total eligible costs, through and including November 26,
2005.
    Please notify Governor Barbour and the Federal Coordinating
Officer of this amendment to my major disaster declaration.

    This cost share is effective as of the date of the President's
major disaster declaration.

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

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-21705 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69605-69606]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 16 and 112

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921]
RIN 0910-AG35

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Comment Periods

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period for the proposed
rule and for its information collection provisions.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the
comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in
the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3504), entitled
``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce
for Human Consumption'' and for its information collection provisions.

DATES: The FDA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule
referenced in the Summary. Submit either electronic or written comments
on the notice of proposed rulemaking by November 22, 2013. Submit
comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (the PRA) by November 22, 2013 (see the ``Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995'' section).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2011-
N-0921 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0910-AG35, by any of
the following methods, except that comments on information collection
issues under the PRA must be submitted to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see the
``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section).

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921, and RIN 0910-AG35 for this rulemaking.
All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting comments, see the ``How to Submit
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: With regard to the proposed rule:
Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300),
Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>. With regard to the information collection: Domini
Bean, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration,
1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400T, Rockville, MD 20850,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3504), FDA
published a proposed rule entitled ``Standards for the Growing,
Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.''
The original comment period of 120 days was extended several times and
interested persons were most recently given until November 15, 2013
(Federal Register of August 9, 2013, 78 FR 48637), to comment on the
proposed rule and its information collection provisions.

II. Request for Comments

    FDA is extending the comment period due to the inability of some
commenters to submit comments through the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site from November 4, 2013, through November 14, 2013, because of
technical difficulties at that Web site.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Interested persons may either submit electronic comments regarding
the information collection to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax
written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>. All comments should be
identified with the title ``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting,
Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.''

IV. How To Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27784 Filed 11-15-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Impingement and Entrainment Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals Presented by:

Carey A. Johnston, P. E.

U. S. EPA, Office of Water Washington, DC Presented to:

NOAA National Workshop on LNG and Related Facilities Silver Spring, MD July 20, 2004 July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 2 Presentation Overview ° Overview of LNG import terminals and potential impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms.

° Overview of U. S. EPA's CWA § 316( b) regulations and potential applicability to LNG import terminals.

° Impingement and Entrainment Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals.

 Onshore  Offshore ° Questions/ Thoughts? July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 3 ° Worldwide there are currently 17 LNG export terminals and 40 LNG import terminals with many more planned.

World Wide LNG Import/ Export Industry ° LNG import terminals exist in Japan, South Korea and Europe, as well as five in the United States. Dominion Cove Point, MD LNG Import Terminal July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 4 ° Interest in LNG imports has been rekindled by:

 higher U. S. natural gas prices in recent years, and  technological advances that have lowered costs for liquefaction, re gasification, shipping, and storing of LNG.

° Net LNG imports are estimated to increase from 0.2 trillion cubic feet in 2002 to 2.2 and 4.8 trillion cubic feet in 2010 and 2025, respectively ( DOE, 2004).

° One industry estimate is that 10 to 12 LNG import terminals will be built in the U. S. within the decade with an investment of more than $ 5 billion ( World Energy, 2004).

Why the renewed interest in LNG? July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 5 How Much Natural Gas Is Out There? Source: FERC   LNG supply growing   Multiple LNG supply proposals announced   Long term LNG supply outlook robust Global LNG Supply WORLD PROVED RESERVES 2002:

6,270 TCF NORTH AMERICA RESERVES 4% Existing Under Construction Proposed Global LNG Supply Facilities July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 6 FERC Office of Energy Projects 6 Existing Terminals with Approved Expansions A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd ( Tractebel   DOMAC)

B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd ( Dominion   Cove Point LNG)

C. Elba Island, GA : 1.2 Bcfd ( El Paso   Southern LNG)

D. Lake Charles, LA : 1.2 Bcfd ( Southern Union   Trunkline LNG)

Approved Terminals 1. Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, ( Sempra Energy)

2. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

3. Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, ( AES Ocean Express)*

4. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, ( El Paso Energy Bridge GOM, LLC)

5. Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, ( Calypso Tractebel)*

Proposed Terminals and Expansions   FERC 6. Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, ( Cheniere / Freeport LNG Dev.)

7. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, ( Weaver's Cove Energy)

8. Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, ( SES/ Mitsubishi)

9. Corpus Christi, TX : 2.6 Bcfd, ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

10. Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd ( Cheniere LNG)

11. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd ( Vista Del Sol/ ExxonMobil)

12. Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd ( Golden Pass/ ExxonMobil)

13. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd ( Crown Landing LNG   BP)

14. Lake Charles, LA: 0.6 Bcfd ( Southern Union   Trunkline LNG)

15. Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Seafarer  El Paso/ FPL )

16. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd ( Occidental Energy Ventures)

17. Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd ( Keyspan & BG LNG)

Proposed Terminals   Coast Guard 18. California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd, ( Cabrillo Port   BHP Billiton)

19. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd ( Gulf Landing   Shell)

20. So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Crystal Energy)

21. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd ( McMoRan Exp.)

22. Gulf of Mexico: n/ a ( Compass Port  ConocoPhillips)

Planned Terminals and Expansions 23. Brownsville, TX : n/ a, ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

24. Mobile Bay, AL: 1.0 Bcfd, ( ExxonMobil)

25. Somerset, MA : 0.65 Bcfd ( Somerset LNG)

26. Belmar, NJ Offshore : n/ a ( El Paso Global)

27. Altamira, Tamulipas : 1.12 Bcfd, ( Shell)

28. Baja California, MX : 1.0 Bcfd, ( Sempra & Shell)

29. Baja California  Offshore : 1.4 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

30. California  Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Chevron Texaco)

31. St. John, NB : 0.5 Bcfd, ( Canaport   Irving Oil)

32. Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/ d ( Bear Head LNG  Access Northeast Energy)

33. Searsport, ME : n/ a 34. St. Lawrence, QC : n/ a ( TCPL and/ or Gaz Met)

35. Lázaro Cárdenas, MX : 0.5 Bcfd ( Tractebel)

36. Gulf of Mexico : 1.0 Bcfd ( ExxonMobil)

37. Mobile Bay, AL: 1.0 Bcfd ( Cheniere LNG Partners)

38. Cherry Point, WA: 0.5 Bcfd ( Cherry Point Energy LLC)

39. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd ( Dominion)

40. Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd ( Sempra)

* US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals May 2004 Office of Energy Projects A C 1 3 5 2 4 31 7 26 15 6 23 27 9 18 8 25 21 20 32 34 33 35 19 28 29 11 36 10 12 17 13 B 30 24 14 38 39 16 37 22 40D July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 7 ° Re gasification ( vaporization) process of LNG is an endothermic process and requires a heat source.

° Typically, LNG is pumped through some heating system,

where it absorbs heat and vaporizes into natural gas.

° Some vaporization systems use significant amounts of oncethrough warming waters as the heat source ( 80 to 200 MGD).

° Aquatic organisms ( including eggs and larvae) may be impinged or entrained in these water intakes.

Entrainment & Impingement Potential July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 8 Entrainment & Impingement Potential Dude, bummer situation Hmmm, is this a warming or cooling water intake Screen July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 9 ° The Clean Water Act ( § 316( b)) requires controls on cooling water intake structures ( CWIS) to reduce adverse environmental impacts at industrial facilities.

" Any standard established pursuant to section 1311 of this title or section 1316 of this title [ section 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act] and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact."

° Only limitation on water intake in the Clean Water Act.

° Only use of the phrase " best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact."

° Note: CWA § 316( a) regulates thermal discharges.

EPA CWA § 316( b) Regulations July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 10 ° Cooling water intake structure ( CWIS) means the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters of the U. S., provided that at least 25 percent of the water withdrawn is used for cooling purposes.

° The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump or series of pumps.

° CWI regulations may affect a variety of NPDES permit holders ( e. g.,

power plants, manufacturers).

° EPA is under a court order to propose the last of three 316( b)

regulations by November 1, 2004, with a finalization date of June 1,

2006. ( More info at: www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ index. html)

EPA CWA § 316( b) Regulations July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 11 ° The CWA § 316( b) Phase I ( new facility) rule applies to new onshore facilities, including new onshore LNG import terminals, that:

( 1) use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the U. S.;

( 2) are required to obtain an NPDES permit;

( 3) have a design intake flow of greater than 2 MGD; and ( 4) use at least 25 percent of water withdrawn for cooling purposes ( see 40 CFR 125.81)

° EPA is reviewing new offshore LNG import terminals and existing onshore LNG import terminals as part of the Phase III § 316( b) rule.

LNG Import Terminals & CWA § 316( b) July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 12 ° For many LNG import terminals most or all of the surface water intakes are used for the re gasification process, an endothermic process, and are not consider " water withdrawn for cooling purposes."

° If a new onshore LNG import terminal uses less than 25 percent of its water for cooling purposes or does not meet the 2 MGD intake flow threshold, the § 316( b) Phase I new facility rule specifies that the new facility must meet § 316( b) requirements as specified by the NPDES permit authority on a case by case basis, using best professional judgment ( see 40 CFR 125.80( c)).

° See the following April 2004 EPA memo for more details on how the § 316( b) Phase I new facility rule applies to new onshore LNG import terminals: http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ pubs/ LNG_ clarification_ memo. pdf LNG Import Terminals & CWA 316( b) July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 13 ° Since the 1970s, none of the four existing continental onshore U. S. LNG import terminals use surface water for warming or cooling purposes, only as an emergency backup source to their firewater systems.

° The EcoElectrica facility in Puerto Rico does use surface water for makeup and discharges blowdown for the on site power plant cooling tower, but does not use surface water for LNG processing ( warming or cooling). The EcoElectrica facility integrates LNG vaporization with its power plant operations ( see next slide).

I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals  Onshore Dominion LNG Import Terminal, Cove Point, MD July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 14 July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 15 ° Some new facilities are also proposing to use waste heat from nearby industrial facilities for their re gasification ( e. g., Ingleside Energy Center LNG Import Terminal, Corpus Christi, TX).

° This integration is a ` win win' solution as it provides a resource ( cold water from LNG import terminal) to a nearby industrial facility. This integration can lead to the following benefits for the nearby industrial facility:

 increase operational efficiency, reduce operating costs, and  reduce or eliminate thermal and chemical pollution and potential entrainment or impingement impacts from heat exchanger surface water intakes.

° One estimate suggests that an electric power generator using cold water from an LNG import terminal can boost its efficiency by 1 to 2%, resulting in cost savings ( World Energy, 2004).

° Finally, this integration reduces or eliminates the potential entrainment or impingement impacts as well as the thermal and chemical pollution associated with the water intake LNG re gasification processes.

I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals  Onshore July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 16 ° In general, most new onshore LNG import terminals are proposing to use LNG vaporization systems with no surface water intakes ( e. g.,

integration with other industrial facilities, heating towers, gas fired heaters).

I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals  Onshore BP Crown Landing LNG import terminal, Gloucester County, New Jersey ( Source: http:// www. bplng. com/ products/ services_ tech. asp)

° However, at least one new facility ( BP Crown Landing) is proposing to use surface water as a heat source for their LNG regasification July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 17 Cabrillo Port, Deepwater Port, Ventura, California ° Initial data suggest that six of the eight proposed offshore LNG import terminals will use surface water for warming and/ or cooling purposes.

° Only GOM Energy Bridge uses more than 25% of water intake for cooling  all other intakes are used for vaporization ( warming)

purposes.

I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals  Offshore ° Two proposed LNG import terminals are projected to use no water intakes   e. g burn natural gas to provide energy for re gasification ( Cabrillo Port, Offshore CA). July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 18 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals  Offshore * Note: The GOM Energy bridge can use both shell and tube vaporizers and closed loop heat exchangers. Closed loop system also projected to use 57 MGD of sea water for vessel's main condenser. 0 Yes Intermediate fluid vaporizers 1*

No Closed loop heat exchangers 1*

Yes Shell and tube vaporizers 2 No Submerged combustion vaporizers 5 Yes Open rack vaporizers No. Offshore LNG terminals Water Intake?

Type of Vaporization July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 19 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( ORV)

° It appears likely that five of the eight proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Open Rack Vaporizer ( ORV) technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., Port Pelican, Gulf Landing, Compass Port, Main Pass Energy Hub, Port Penguin).

° This re gasification technology uses large quantities of seawater ( e. g., 100 to 200 MGD) flowing over a series of panel coils to warm the LNG that is flowing countercurrent within the panels. Sea water flows through intake screens and is then pumped to ORVs through strainers.

° Sodium hypochlorite is often injected at concentrations of 1 to 2 mg/ L into intake waters as an anti biofouling agent. July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 20 Source: Port Pelican Deepwater Port License Application July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 21 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( ORV)

° " The use of this large quantity of seawater [ associated with ORV or IFV] raises concerns over entrainment and impingement of marine species, thermal plumes, turbidity, treated water discharge and noise."

° " Based on continuous send out rate of 7.5 million tons per year ( 1020 MMSCFD), we estimate that this will [ require] 18,000 m3/ hr [~ 114 MGD] at a 8.5 oC temperature drop from the inlet temperature.

Significant changes to marine ecology are likely due to marine life becoming trapped in filtration systems [ and] plankton removed from food chain in large volumes."

Cabrillo Port Application for Deepwater Port License Compass Port Application for Deepwater Port License July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 22 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( ORV)

° All five LNG import terminals using ORV technology are designing the intakes with a through screen velocity of 0.5 ft/ sec or less in order to reduce impingement.

° Moreover, most of these LNG import terminals are proposing to use intake screens with wedge wire technology to reduce the potential for impingement.

° Some are proposing to use cylindrical wedge wire screen with 0.25 inch slot size openings to reduce impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screen w/ Air Sparging ( Johnson Screens) July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 23 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( ORV)

° Finally, some of these import terminals using ORVs are proposing other control measures to reduce impingement and entrainment:

 Locating the intakes as close as practical to the sea bottom to reduce the potential for entrainment of smaller aquatic organisms which are more likely to be near the surface;

 Designing intakes for horizontal flow to minimize the potential for water coning from the surface;

 Minimizing warming water throughput requirements for the installation by using the maximum practical inlet to outlet seawater temperature change of 18 oF; and  Committing to monitor impingement and entrainment of marine life during the first two years of operation to establish the impact of the facility on marine life, and a commitment to implement reasonable and practical improvement measures if warranted scientifically through the monitoring program. July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 24 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( SCV)

° It appears likely that two of the eight proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Submerged Combustion Vaporizer ( SCV)

technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., Cabrillo Port, Crystal Energy).

° This re gasification technology uses no surface water and instead uses LNG as the heat source.

° SCV burns natural gas equivalent to 1.5 to 2% of the LNG throughput to generate heat. This is similar to the 1.5% energy penalty identified in the 316( b) Phase I new facility rule for cooling towers.

° Overall the SCV has lower capital cost than the ORV system and quick start up but has a higher operating cost ( especially at gas prices higher than $ 1.9/ MMBtu). July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 25 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( SCV) July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 26 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( STV)

° It appears likely that one of the eight proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use shell and tube vaporizer technology for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., GOM Energy Bridge).

° This re gasification technology uses seawater from sea chests to provide the necessary heat. The warming seawater will pass through the shell and tube vaporizer and indirectly heat the LNG. As describe above, this re gasification technology uses large quantities of seawater ( e. g., approximately 80 MGD).

° The GOM Energy Bridge will draw seawater from the surrounding area at approximately 23 ft below the water surface.

° Intake structures on the LNG vessels are sized to provide seawater for both standard ship operations ( including water intakes for cooling purposes) and the warming water for the LNG vaporizers. July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 27 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( STV)

° GOM Energy Bridge is proposing an intake velocity of approximately 1.0 ft/ s. The sea chest intakes incorporate metal slotted grating on 21 millimeters ( mm) spacings to reduce the impingement of aquatic organisms.

° " This mesh size [ will not] prevent the entrainment of eggs and larvae of marine fish species."

° Options for sea chest intakes are more limited than intakes for fixed structures, however, other impingement and entrainment controls for these sea chests might include:

 Using intake screens with wedge wire technology to reduce the potential for impingement, and  Other similar control technologies identified for ORV systems.

Final EA for GOM Energy Bridge Deepwater Port Application July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 28 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( CLHE)

° It appears likely that one of the eight proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals has the potential to the use closed loop heat exchangers ( CLHE) for re gasification of LNG ( i. e., GOM Energy Bridge).

° In the closed loop mode, steam from the LNG vessel propulsion boilers will heat water circulated in a closed loop through the shell and tube vaporizer and a steam heater. After the cycle, the water will be re circulated through the system.

° There is no seawater intake or discharge for the re gasification process in the closed loop mode. The closed loop mode allows for LNG re gasification when surrounding seawater temperatures are too cold for the more efficient open loop mode. July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 29 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( CLHE)

° The main disadvantage of this closed loop re gasification system verses the shell and tube vaporizers ( open loop) re gasification system is the decreased rate of LNG vaporization ( 0.45 Bcfd vs 0.55 Bfcd).

° The closed loop configuration is also projected to use 57 MGD of sea water for vessel's main condenser.

° " Vessels operating in the closed loop mode avoid impacts to marine fishery species from impingement and entrainment, and are capable of re gasifying LNG with only slightly less efficiency than vessels operating in the open loop mode. The EA for the Energy Bridge Gulf of Mexico deepwater port should evaluate alternative criteria for re gasification operational modes, including requiring the sole use of closed loop re gasification systems. Detailed justification should be provided in the EA for the selection or elimination of alternatives for re gasification operational modes." [ emphasis added]

NOAA's June 20,2003, letter to USGC July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 30 I& E Control Technologies Available for LNG Import Terminals   Offshore ( IFV)

° It appears likely that none of the eight proposed U. S. offshore LNG import terminals will use Intermediate Fluid Vaporizer ( IFV) technology for regasification of LNG.

° This re gasification technology uses glycol/ water mix to exchange heat with the LNG via a shell and tube exchanger.

° Sea water is used a heat source and in same flow rate as ORV.

° Potential IFV I& E control technologies same as ORV. July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 31 Questions/ Thoughts? July 20, 2004 NOAA LNG Workshop 32 U. S. EPA Contact Information chen. isaac@ epa. gov 214 665 7364 Engineer,

Region 6 Isaac Chen giglio. larry@ epa. gov 214 665 6639 Engineer,

Region 6 Larry Giglio Economist Biologist Engineer Position johnston. carey@ epa. gov 202 566 1014 Carey Johnston, P. E. helm. erik@ epa. gov 202 566 1066 Erik Helm allen. ashley@ epa. gov 202 566 1012 Ashley Allen E mail Phone Name


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31790-31792]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14341]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81073; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Listing Standards for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To
Change Its Requirements With Respect to the Approval of a Business
Combination

July 3, 2017

I. Introduction

    On May 1, 2017, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend listing standards for Special Purpose
Acquisition Companies (``SPACs'') \3\ to amend the Exchange's listing
standards with respect to its shareholder vote requirement for approval
of a Business Combination. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017.\4\ On May 23, 2017,
NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission to amend and restate its
proposal to, among other things, require a majority of a SPAC's
independent directors to approve a Business Combination, until a SPAC
has satisfied the Business Combination condition.\5\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. The Commission is publishing this
notice on Amendment No. 1 and approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that throughout this order we have used
the term ``SPAC'' or ``SPACs'', but these terms have the same
meaning as ``Acquisition Company'' or ``Acquisition Companies''
which are the terms used for listing, and continued listing, in
Section 102.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (``Manual'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80677 (May 15,
2017), 82 FR 23123 (May 19, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange also proposed to add two
new defined terms, ``Business Combination'' and ``Business
Combination Condition'', using the existing language in Section
102.06 of the Manual, concerning listing standards for SPACs, as the
definition for these defined terms. Therefore, these changes merely
provided clarification and do not substantively change the SPAC
standards or the Business Combination requirements for SPACs. See
also, note 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

A. General Background on SPACs

    A SPAC is a special purpose company that raises capital in an
initial public offering (``IPO'') to enter into future undetermined
business combinations (a ``Business Combination'') through mergers,
capital stock exchanges, assets acquisitions, stock purchases,
reorganizations or similar business combinations with one or more
operating businesses or assets with a fair market value equal to at
least 80% of the net assets of the SPAC held in trust (``Business
Combination Condition''). Section 102.06 of the Manual sets forth the
listing standards that apply to SPACs. In addition to requiring SPACs
to meet certain quantitative standards, Section 102.06 of the Manual
provides additional investor protection safeguards for shareholders
investing in SPACs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also, NYSE SPAC Continued Listing Standards, Section
802.01B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Change to Shareholder Vote Requirements

    Section 102.06 of the Manual sets forth, among other things, the
approval process of SPAC Business Combinations. If the SPAC holds a
shareholder vote on a Business Combination for which the SPAC must file
and furnish a proxy or information statement subject to Regulation 14A
or 14C under the Act in advance of the shareholding meeting, the
Business Combination must be approved by a majority of the votes cast
by public shareholders at the shareholder meeting at which the Business
Combination is being considered.\7\ Until the Business Combination
Condition is met each Business Combination of a SPAC, utilizing the
voting option,\8\ must be approved by a majority of the public
shareholders. The Exchange proposes to amend the approval requirement
from a majority of the votes cast by public shareholders to a majority
of the votes cast at the shareholder meeting at which the Business
Combination is being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section 102.06(a) of the Manual. Shares held by
directors, officers, or their immediate families and other
concentrated holdings of 10 percent or more are excluded in
calculating the number of publicly-held shares. See note (B) of
Section 102.01 of the Manual.
    \8\ See note 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Change To Require Independent Director Approval

    The Exchange, in Amendment No. 1, also proposed to add a new
requirement that each Business Combination to be approved by a majority
of the SPAC's independent directors, until the SPAC satisfies the
Business Combination Condition. The Exchange also made some clarifying
changes to its proposal.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented that its amended proposal would harmonize
its SPAC listing standards with those of the NASDAQ Stock Market and
NYSE MKT. NYSE stated that both the NASDAQ Stock Market and NYSE MKT
have comparable voting and independent director requirements for SPACs
as those being proposed by the Exchange in the amended filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NASDAQ IM 5101-2 and Section 119 of the NYSE MKT
Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-20 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2017.

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, and finds that it is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\11\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
to protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal seeks to modify the requirements in the Manual with
respect to how a SPAC may seek approval of a Business Combination in
two ways. First, the Exchange is proposing to require a majority of all
votes cast at a shareholder meeting to approve a Business Combination
instead of a majority of votes cast by public shareholders. Second, the
Exchange is proposing to require the approval of a majority of a SPAC's
independent directors until the Business Combination Condition is
satisfied.
    The Commission notes that the proposed changes are substantially
similar to previously approved requirements of the NASDAQ Stock Market
and NYSE MKT.\13\ These requirements have previously been subject to
full public notice and comment period and have been found to be
consistent with the Act. The Commission also notes, under the Exchange
rules, that the public shareholders of an Exchange listed SPAC will
continue to have a conversion right which allows them to convert their
shares for a pro rata share of the cash held in the trust account if
they vote against a Business Combination, provided that the Business
Combination is approved and consummated.\14\ The Commission believes
that this provision should help to provide protections to those
shareholders who have voted against the Business Combination. Moreover,
requiring a majority of the independent directors to approve a Business
Combination should provide further protection for public shareholders
by including an additional level of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58228 (July 25,
2008), 73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (SR-Nasdaq-2008-013) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63366 (November 23, 2010), 75 FR
74119 (November 30, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-103). SR-NYSEAmex-2010-
103 filing was noticed and immediately effective upon filing. This
was a copycat filing of the previously approved SR-Nasdaq-2008-013
and was filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(6). See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ See Section 102.06(b) of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the same provisions for the Nasdaq Stock Market that
NYSE is proposing, the Commission stated that the conversion rights
will help to ensure that public shareholders who disagree with
management's decisions with respect to a Business Combination have
adequate remedies. In addition, the Commission noted that requiring the
majority of the independent directors to approve a Business Combination
should help to ensure that a Business Combination is entered into by
the SPAC after a fair and impartial decision. The Commission continues
to believe that these two provisions together, in addition to the other
requirements in the Exchange's SPAC listing and continued listing
standards both prior to, at the time of and after a Business
Combination, should continue to adequately protect public investors of
SPACs upon approval of the Exchange's proposal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Commission notes that amending the vote requirement for
approval of a Business Combination to all shareholders rather than
public shareholders may also help prevent greenmail situations that
have arisen over recent years with SPACs. NYSE recently adopted a
tender offer option for a SPAC to complete a Business Combination,
rather than a shareholder vote, to address greenmail concerns.
Greenmail is a situation where a particular, or group of, hedge
funds and other activist investors employ a strategy of acquiring an
interest in a SPAC. These SPAC investors then use their voting
rights as a threat to block a proposed Business Combination unless
additional consideration is provided to them which is not provided
to other shareholders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80199
(March 10, 2017), 82 FR 13905, 13907 (March 15, 2017) (The
Commission approving a SPAC related filing describing the threat of
greenmail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed
changes to SPAC listing standards are consistent with the requirements
of the Act.

V. Accelerated Approval of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\16\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, prior to the 30th day after publication of
Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 1 requires a
majority of a SPAC's independent directors to approve a Business
Combination, until a SPAC has satisfied the Business Combination
Condition and contains additional clarifying amendments.\17\ The
Commission notes that the remainder of the proposed rule change is not
being amended and was subject to a full notice-and-comment period. The
Commission further notes that Amendment No. 1 would bring the proposal
to align with the requirements of other national securities exchanges,
whose proposals were subject to notice and comment, and does not raise
any novel regulatory concerns. Accordingly, the Commission finds that
good cause exists to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ See note 5, supra.

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

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered that pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act \18\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
(SR-NYSE-2017-20) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14341 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68137-68139]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0637; Notice No. 33-14-02-SC]

Special Conditions: CFM International, LEAP-1A and -1C Engine
Models; Incorporation of Woven Composite Fan Blades

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the CFM
International (CFM), LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. These engines will
have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the engine fan
blades--new woven composite fan blades. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before December 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2014-0637]
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Docket Operations will post all comments it receives,
without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal
information the

commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received
into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the
comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor
union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as
well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: You may read background documents or comments received at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
these proposed special conditions, contact Alan Strom, ANE-111, Engine
and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this proposed rule,
contact Vincent Bennett, ANE-7, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites
comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed
special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions
based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On June 27, 2012, the FAA received the type certificate application
for CFM's LEAP-1A and -1C turbofan engine models. The LEAP engine
models are high-bypass-ratio engines that incorporate a novel and
unusual design feature--new woven composite fan blades. The woven
composite fan blades will have significant differences in material
property characteristics when compared to conventionally designed fan
blades using non-composite metallic materials.
    Special conditions are required to ensure that the LEAP-1A and -1C
woven composite design fan blades account for the differences in
material properties and failure modes relative to conventional single-
load path metallic blades. In addition, different containment
requirements may be applied provided CFM shows that the blade design
below the inner annulus flow path line provides multiple load paths
and/or crack arresting features that prevent delamination or crack
propagation to blade failure during the life of the blade.
    These special conditions are necessary because the applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for the new woven composite design fan blades.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, CFM must show that the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models meet
the applicable provisions of the applicable regulations in effect on
the date of application, except as detailed in paragraphs 21.101(b) and
(c). The FAA has determined the following certification basis for the
LEAP-1A and -1C engine models:
    1. 14 CFR part 33, ``Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines,''
dated February 1, 1965, with Amendments 33-1 through 33-32, dated
September 20, 2012.
    If the FAA finds that the regulations in effect on the date of the
application for the change do not provide adequate or appropriate
safety standards for the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness
regulations and the requirements of these special conditions, the LEAP-
1A and -1C engine models must also comply with the fuel venting and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The LEAP-1A and -1C engine models will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
    The LEAP-1A and -1C engine models will incorporate woven composite
fan blades. The woven composite fan blades will have significant
differences in material property characteristics when compared to
conventionally designed fan blades using non-composite metallic
materials. Composite material design provides the capability to
incorporate multiple load paths and/or crack arresting features that
prevent delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the
life of the blade.
    The woven composite fan blades are a novel and unusual design
feature that requires additional airworthiness standards for type
certification of the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models.

Discussion

    The woven composite fan blades are a novel and unusual design
feature that requires additional airworthiness standards for type
certification of the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. The current
requirements of Sec.  33.94 are based on single-load path metallic fan
blade characteristics and service history, and are not appropriate for
the unusual design features of the woven composite fan blade found on
the CFM LEAP series turbofan engines.
    The properties of a composite blade are highly dependent of the
composite ply configuration, matrix material, and manufacturing
methods. The CFM LEAP engine incorporates 3-D woven resin transfer
molding (RTM) technology in the design and manufacture of the blade.
    It is expected that CFM will conduct the required material testing
per Sec.  33.15

to determine material characteristics that include the effects of
defects, manufacturing variations, contamination, environmental effect,
and service damage on the material capability and blade life.
    Composite material design provides the capability to incorporate
multiple load paths and/or crack arresting features that prevent
delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the life of
the blade. The probability of failure that an appropriately designed
composite fan blade will fail below the inner annulus flow path line
may be highly improbable. The airworthiness regulations of 14 CFR part
33 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for an
aircraft engine incorporating these novel or unusual design features
i.e., woven composite fan blades, including release of the fan blade
under Sec.  33.94(a)(1) at the inner annulus flow path line (only the
airfoil) instead of the outermost retention feature.
    Instead of blade failure at the outermost retention groove
currently required by Sec.  33.94(a)(1), the FAA has determined that a
more realistic blade-out test can be achieved with a fan blade failure
at the inner annulus flow path line i.e., releasing only the airfoil.
    Additionally, the FAA considers any change to the design,
manufacturing, materials, or service management to the blade below the
inner annulus flow path to be a change that could affect the blade
integrity. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the blade be marked
with a part and serial number, and that additional integrity
requirements be applied to the blade below the inner annulus flow path
line.
    These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the
level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on
the date of application.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. Should CFM apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only the woven composite fan blade feature on
the LEAP-1A and -1C engine models. It is not a rule of general
applicability and applies only to CFM, who requested FAA approval of
this engine feature.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, Aviation Safety, Reporting, and Recordkeeping.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as
part of the type certification basis for CFM, LEAP-1A and -1C engine
models.

1. Part 33, Requirements

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33,
effective February 1, 1965, with Amendments 33-1 through 33-32
applicable to the CFM, LEAP-1A and -1C engine models:
    (a) Conduct an engine fan blade containment test with the fan blade
failing at the inner annulus flow path line instead of at the outermost
retention groove.
    (b) Substantiate by test and analysis, or other methods acceptable
to the FAA, that a fan disk and fan blade retention system with minimum
material properties can withstand, without failure, a centrifugal load
equal to two times the maximum load the retention system could
experience within approved engine operating limitations. The fan blade
retention system includes the portion of the fan blade from the inner
annulus flow path line inward to the blade dovetail, the blade
retention components, and the fan disk and fan blade attachment
features.
    (c) Using a procedure approved by the FAA, establish an operating
limitation that specifies the maximum allowable number of start-stop
stress cycles for the fan blade retention system. The life evaluation
must include the combined effects of high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue.
If the operating limitation is less than 100,000 cycles, that
limitation must be specified in Chapter 5 of the Engine Manual
Airworthiness Limitation Section. The procedure used to establish the
maximum allowable number of start-stop stress cycles for the fan blade
retention system will incorporate the integrity requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of these special conditions for the fan
blade retention system.
    (1) An engineering plan, which establishes and maintains that the
combinations of loads, material properties, environmental influences,
and operating conditions, including the effects of parts influencing
these parameters, are well known or predictable through validated
analysis, test, or service experience.
    (2) A manufacturing plan that identifies the specific manufacturing
constraints necessary to consistently produce the fan blade retention
system with the attributes required by the engineering plan.
    (3) A service management plan that defines in-service processes for
maintenance and repair of the fan blade retention system, which will
maintain attributes consistent with those required by the engineering
plan.
    (d) Substantiate by test and analysis, or other methods acceptable
to the FAA, that the blade design below the inner annulus flow path
line provides multiple load paths and/or crack arresting features that
prevent delamination or crack propagation to blade failure during the
life of the blade.
    (e) Substantiate that during the service life of the engine, the
total probability of an individual blade retention system failure
resulting from all possible causes, as defined in Sec.  33.75, will be
extremely improbable with a cumulative calculated probability of
failure of less than 10-\9\ per engine flight hour.
    (f) Substantiate by test or analysis that not only will the engine
continue to meet the requirements of Sec.  33.75 following a lightning
strike on the composite fan blade structure, but that the lightning
strike will not cause damage to the fan blades that would prevent
continued safe operation of the affected engine.
    (g) Account for the effects of in-service deterioration,
manufacturing variations, minimum material properties, and
environmental effects during the tests and analyses required by
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of these special
conditions.
    (h) Propose fleet leader monitoring and field sampling programs
that will monitor the effects of engine fan blade usage and fan blade
retention system integrity.
    (i) Mark each fan blade legibly and permanently with a part number
and a serial number.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 6, 2014.
Kimberly K. Smith,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-27019 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18153-18154]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06660]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0961; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-35 and V-276; Eastern United
States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VOR Federal airways V-35 and V-276 in the
eastern United States. The FAA is taking this action due to the
scheduled decommissioning of the Tyrone, PA, VORTAC facility, which
provides navigation guidance for portions of the routes.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 22, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend VOR Federal airways V-35
and V-276, Eastern United States (79 FR 3544); due to the
decommissioning of the Tyrone, PA, VORTAC. This document also corrects
a typographical error in the title block of the NPRM; correcting VOR
Federal Airway V-267 to V-276. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. One comment was received. The comment was not
aeronautical in nature and was outside the scope of this rule.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-35 and V-276 due to the
decommissioning of the Tyrone, PA, VORTAC facility. In light of the
planned VORTAC decommissioning, the FAA conducted an analysis of the
air traffic usage of V-35 and V-276 and found that some segments of
both airways experienced low utilization in the general area of the
Tyrone VORTAC. Consequently, the FAA is removing the underutilized
segments in both airways. Specifically, this action makes the following
changes to the routes:
    V-35 is modified by eliminating the route segments from Morgantown,
WV, through Indian Head, PA, Johnstown, PA, and Tyrone, PA to
Phillipsburg, PA. The modified V-35 extends between Dolphin, FL, and
Morgantown, WV; and between Phillipsburg, PA, and Syracuse, NY.
    V-276 is modified by eliminating the segments between Erie, PA, and
the intersection of radials from the Phillipsburg, PA, and Ravine, PA,
VORTACs (i.e., RASHE intersection). The modified V-276 now extends from
the RASHE intersection, then proceeds along its currently charted track
through Ravine, PA; Yardley, PA; and Robbinsville, NJ, to the
intersection of the Robbinsville, NJ, 112[deg] and the Coyle, NJ,
090[deg] radials (i.e., the PREPI intersection). This action also makes
a correction in the title block of the NPRM, to correct the inverted
numbers of VOR Federal Airway from V-267 to V-276.
    Except for editorial changes, and the change noted above, this rule
is the same as published in the NPRM.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact
is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the
safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the eastern United
States.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013 and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6010 VOR Federal airways.

V-35

    From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 266[deg] and Cypress, FL, 110[deg]
radials; INT Cypress 110[deg] and Lee County, FL, 138[deg] radials;
Lee County; INT Lee County 326[deg] and St. Petersburg, FL, 152[deg]
radials; St. Petersburg; INT St. Petersburg 350[deg] and Cross City,
FL, 168[deg] radials; Cross City; Greenville, FL; Pecan, GA; Macon,
GA; INT Macon 005[deg] and Athens, GA, 195[deg] radials; Athens;
Electric City, SC; Sugarloaf Mountain, NC; Holston Mountain, TN;
Glade Spring, VA; Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 051[deg] and
Elkins, WV, 264[deg] radials; Clarksburg, WV to Morgantown, WV. From
Philipsburg, PA; Stonyfork, PA; Elmira, NY; to Syracuse, NY. The
airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded.
The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.

V-276

    From INT Philipsburg, PA 132[deg] and Ravine, PA 279[deg]
radials; Ravine; Yardley, PA; Robbinsville, NJ; to INT Robbinsville
112[deg] and Coyle, NJ, 090[deg] radials.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-06660 Filed 3-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8985-8986]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-454-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Clean Up Filing to remove
expired & no longer NC/Neg Rate contracts to be effective 3/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-456-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Expired Agmts from
Tariff eff 2/21/2018 to be effective 2/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-457-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--NJ Natural
910230 eff 04-01-2018 to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180221-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: CP18-91-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Joint Abbreviated Application for Certificate And
Abandonment Authorization of Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180222-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-458-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--NJR Energy
Services k911427 eff 04-01-18 to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180222-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-459-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service
Agreement--EQT Energy LPS 4/1/2018 to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180223-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-460-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing to Incorporate Approved
Changes from RP17-851-000, et al. to be effective 2/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180223-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-461-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing LA Storage, LLC Annual Adjustment of
Fuel Retainage Percentage to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180223-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-462-000.
    Applicants: Chief Oil & Gas LLC.
    Description: Petition of Chief Oil & Gas LLC For Temporary Waiver
of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies, and Request for Expedited
Consideration.
    Filed Date: 2/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180223-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 26, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04305 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61709-61710]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice Rescinding Eight Notices of Intent To Prepare
Environmental Impact Statements

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notices of
Intent (NOI) for the following Environmental Impact Statements (EIS):
The Pennsylvania Maglev Proposal; the Tupelo Railroad Relocation
Planning and Environmental Study; the Tier 2 EIS for the Chicago to
Joliet High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project; the Tier 2 EIS for the HSR
Project between Granite City, IL to St. Louis, MO HSR Project; EIS for
the ACEforward Program; EIS for the Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis, MN
Rail Corridor; 7) the Los Angeles to San Louis Obispo North

(LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Project; and 8) the Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac
Corridor Investment Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information please
contact Michael Johnsen, Supervisory Environmental Protection
Specialist, at the Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA has identified several projects that,
for various reasons, are no longer advancing through FRA environmental
review and has therefore determined it is appropriate to rescind the
applicable NOI to prepare an EIS. The following NOIs are being
rescinded:
     Pennsylvania Maglev Proposal: FRA published the NOI on
July 19, 2001. The purpose of the EIS was to further explore the
feasibility of a magnetic levitation train system linking Pittsburgh
International Airport to Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs in
Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties. However, the project sponsor has
since decided not to pursue a maglev project in this corridor.
     Relocation or Reconstruction of Rail Lines in Tupelo, MS:
FRA published the NOI on June 29, 2006 to study the potential
relocation or reconstruction of rail lines in the Tupelo, MS central
business district. However, the project sponsor has not advanced the
environmental review and has not identified current or foreseeable
funding for the project.
     Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project: FRA
published the NOI on February 18, 2014 to study potential HSR service
along the Rock Island District Railroad corridor between Chicago and
Joliet, IL. The project sponsor has informed FRA that it does not
intend to pursue the environmental review for the project at this time.
     HSR Project between Granite City, Illinois to St. Louis,
Missouri: FRA published this NOI on February 18, 2014 to study the
increase of rail capacity associated with the Mississippi River
crossings in the Granite City to St. Louis Tier 2 EIS. However, the
project sponsor has informed FRA that it does not intend to pursue the
environmental review for the project at this time.
     ACEforward Program: FRA published the NOI on September 18,
2013. The purpose of the EIS was to study the expansion of existing
rail service between Stockton and San Jose, CA and extension of new
rail service to Modesto and Merced, CA. However, the project sponsor
has determined that the orginial scope for the ACEforward EIS is no
longer consistent with regional planning efforts for improved rail
service throughout the corridor.
     Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis, MN Rail Corridor: FRA
published a revised NOI on May 24, 2013. The purpose of the EIS is to
evaluate ways to improve passenger rail service from the Twin Cities,
MN to Milwaukee, WI. The project sponsor has informed FRA that it does
not wish to pursue the environmental review for the project at this
time.
     LOSSAN Rail Corridor Project: FRA published the NOI for
this project on January 1, 2011. The purpose of the EIS was to study
ways to improve passenger rail service from Los Angeles through San
Louis Obispo. The NOI is being rescinded as the service options on this
corridor have been reevaluated in the updated California State Rail
Plan.
     Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Investment Program:
FRA published the NOI on August 31, 2012. The purpose of the EIS was to
study potential service options and corresponding infrastructure
improvements between Chicago, IL, and Pontiac, MI. The project sponsor
and FRA have agreed to rescind the NOI, however the associated
alternatives analysis and service development plan may be used for
further environmental reviews, where necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Jamie Rennert,
Office Director, Office of Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2018-25993 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


                                                         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

 								 OFFICE OF POLICY

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Transmittal to Docket:  Summary of the March 17, 2011, Public Meeting via Webinar in Seattle, Washington, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of Executive Order 13563:  Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

FROM:	Stuart C. Miles-McLean 		Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

TO: 		Public Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156:  Improving Regulations:  General                     As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned."                As part of its retrospective review of regulations, EPA convened public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodically review our regulations.  This Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting held via webinar on March 17, 2011, in Seattle, Washington.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12821]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

Organization; Conduct and Ethics; and Information and Requests

CFR Correction

    In Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 200 to 239,
revised as of April 1, 2015, on page 19, in Sec.  200.24, remove the
words ``Associate Executive Director of the Office of the Comptroller''
and add in their place the words ``Chief Financial Officer''.

[FR Doc. 2016-05581 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D