[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70366-70369]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0640; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-203-AD;
Amendment 39-17256; AD 2012-22-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes equipped
with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of
extensive damage to engine air intake cowls as a result of acoustic
panel collapse. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the three
inner acoustic panels of both engine air intake cowls to detect
disbonding, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct disbonding, which could result in detachment of
the engine air intake cowl from the engine leading to ingestion of
parts, which could cause failure of the engine, and possible injury to
persons on the ground.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 31, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 31,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2012 (77 FR
37344). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Two operators of A330 aeroplanes fitted with Rolls-Royce Trent
700 engines reported finding extensive damage to engine air intake
cowls as a result of acoustic panel collapse, most probably caused
by panel disbonding.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the
detachment of the engine air intake cowl from the engine, possibly
resulting in ingestion of parts by, and consequence damage to, the
engine, or injury to persons on the ground.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD requires repetitive special detailed inspections
(tap tests) of the 3 inner acoustic panels of both engine air intake
cowls to detect any disbonding and, depending on findings,
applicable corrective actions.

The unsafe condition is detachment of the engine air intake cowl from
the engine, which could result in ingestion of parts causing failure of
the engine, and possible injury to persons on the ground. Corrective
actions include repair or replacement of the affected engine air intake
cowl. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the
AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Change Unsafe Condition Statement

    Airbus stated that the MCAI does not refer to reduced
controllability of the airplane as a potential consequence, but to
injury to persons on the ground.
    We infer that the commenter requests that we modify the unsafe
condition statement specified in the NPRM (77 FR 37344, June 21, 2012).
We agree to change the unsafe condition statement in the AD to remove
the reference to reduced airplane controllability. We have changed the
AD accordingly.

Request To Delete References to Airbus Service Information Appendices

    US Airways requested that we delete references to Appendices 01 and
02 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01,
dated September 27, 2011, in paragraph (h) and in other locations of
the NPRM (77 FR 37344, June 21, 2012). US Airways stated that Appendix
01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01,
dated September 27, 2011, is simply a form that reports inspection
results to Airbus, and it does not recommend mandating an
administrative action that is related to the safety aspect of
inspecting the inlet cowl. US Airways stated that accomplishing this
reporting task is burdensome and does not improve the safety aspects of
the inlet cowl inspection. US Airways stated that Appendix 02 of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01, dated September
27, 2011, is simply a Gantt chart outlining potential man hours and
aircraft downtime needed to complete the inspection.
    We agree to clarify the AD. There are no references to Appendix 01
and/or Appendix 02 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024,
Revision 01, dated September 27, 2011, in paragraph (h) or any other
regulatory section of the AD. However, we have revised the references
to this service information in paragraphs (g), (h), (l), and (m) of
this AD to exclude Appendices 01 through 03, because the information
provided in those appendices is not necessary to accomplish the
requirements of this AD. We consider Appendix 03 of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2011,
unnecessary to accomplish the requirements of this AD, because it is a
Gantt chart outlining elapsed time assumptions for the actions
described in that service information.

Request To Delete References to Rolls-Royce Service Information
Appendix

    US Airways requested that we state in the NPRM (77 FR 37344, June
21, 2012) that Appendix 1 of Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service
Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2011, does not need
to be accomplished. US Airways stated that Appendix 1 of Rolls-Royce
Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, dated
May 10, 2011, noted that accomplishing of this service information
should be marked on the engine air inlet cowl label plate and that
Rolls-Royce and/or Bombardier should be notified of the inspection
results. US Airways stated that it, and most other operators/carriers
in the world, use an electronic database to issue, track, and record
mandatory inspections on their airplanes, and, consequently, there is
no need to mandate marking the inspection service information reference
on the inlet cowl label plate. US Airways also stated that notification
of a Rolls-Royce or Bombardier representative is burdensome and does
not improve the safety aspects of the inlet cowl inspection.
    We partially agree. We do not agree to remove the reference to
Appendix 1 of Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-
AG419, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2011, because Item 1 of Appendix 1
specifies that

accomplishment of this service information should be marked on the
engine air inlet cowl label plate using metal stamp, vibro etch, or
electro etch on the engine air intake cowl modification plate. Not all
operators use an electronic data base to track inspections. In case of
the airplane transfer to another operator, this marking will ensure the
evidence of the accomplishment of required actions. We agree that Items
2 and 3 of Appendix 1 of Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin
RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2011, which specify
reporting, are not necessary. We have added new paragraph (j) to this
AD to specify that the reporting specified in Rolls-Royce Non-
Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including
Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011, is not required by this AD, and have
re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also revised
paragraph (i) of this AD to include the paragraph (j) exclusion.

Request To Specify Revised Service Information

    US Airways requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77
FR 37344, June 21, 2012) to specify Rolls-Royce Non-Modification
Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1,
dated May 10, 2011, as the correct service information.
    We agree to revise the reference to Rolls-Royce Non-Modification
Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1,
dated May 10, 2011, to correctly identify that document as Revision 1.
We have changed paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(iii),
(i)(2), and (l)(1)(ii) (paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the NPRM (77 FR 37344,
June 21, 2012)), of the AD to correctly reference Rolls-Royce Non-
Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including
Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 37344, June 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 37344, June 21, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 20 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $37,400, or $1,700 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take up to 34 work-hours, for a cost of $2,890 per product. We have
received no definitive data that would enable us to provide parts cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no
way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM (77 FR 37344, June 21, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-22-18 Airbus: Amendment 39-17256. Docket No. FAA-2012-0640;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-203-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 31,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and
-343 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers; equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of extensive damage to engine
air intake cowls as a result of acoustic panel collapse. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct disbonding, which could result
in detachment of the engine air intake cowl

from the engine leading to ingestion of parts, which could cause
failure of the engine, and possible injury to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Detailed Inspection

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1)
or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a tap test inspection of the three inner
acoustic panels of each engine air intake cowl for disbonding, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01, excluding Appendices 01
through 03, dated September 27, 2011. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months, except as required
by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
    (1) For an engine air intake cowl that has accumulated less than
5,000 total flight cycles or less than 20,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs first, since its first installation on an airplane
as of the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the
engine air intake cowl has accumulated 5,000 total flight cycles or
20,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first, since its first
installation on an airplane.
    (2) For an engine air intake cowl that has accumulated 5,000 or
more total flight cycles or 20,000 or more total flight hours,
whichever occurs first, since its first installation on an airplane
as of the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) Inspection of Replaced Engine Air Intake Cowl

    For airplanes on which an engine air intake cowl is replaced
after the effective date of this AD, at the applicable compliance
time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Do a tap
test inspection for disbonding of the three inner acoustic panels of
the affected engine air intake cowl for disbonding, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01, excluding Appendices 01 through
03, dated September 27, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 24 months.
    (1) Within 24 months after the engine air intake cowl
accumulates 5,000 total flight cycles or 20,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs first, since its first installation on any
airplane, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Before installation, if an engine air intake cowl has
accumulated 5,000 or more total flight cycles or 20,000 or more
total flight hours, whichever occurs first, since its first
installation on any airplane, and which has not been inspected in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01, excluding Appendices 01
through 03, dated September 27, 2011, within the preceding 24
months.

(i) Corrective Actions

    (1) If any disbonding is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and the findings are within the permitted allowable damage
limits (ADLs) specified in Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service
Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1, dated
May 10, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Do
the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or
(i)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the tap test inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD at the applicable inspection interval specified in Rolls-
Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1,
including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011, except as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD, until the actions required by paragraph
(i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD are accomplished.
    (ii) Repair the affected engine air intake cowl before further
flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-
Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1,
including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011, except as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Repeat the inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at the applicable compliance
time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (iii) Replace the affected engine air intake cowl before further
flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-
Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1,
including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011, except as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Repeat the inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at the applicable compliance
time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) If any disbonding is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and the findings are not within the permitted ADLs
specified in Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-
71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011,
except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further
flight, replace the affected engine air intake cowl, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Rolls-Royce Non-Modification
Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1,
dated May 10, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD
thereafter at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-
71-AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011,
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
    Directive 2011-0173, dated September 13, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this
AD, for related information.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01,
excluding Appendices 01 through 03, dated September 27, 2011.
    (ii) Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-
AG419, Revision 1, including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011.
    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this
AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, England;
telephone 011 44 1332 242424; fax 011 44 1332 249936; Internet https://www.aeromanager.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation
by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 01,
excluding Appendices 01 through 03, dated September 27, 2011.
    (ii) Rolls-Royce Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-71-AG419,
Revision 1, including Appendix 1, dated May 10, 2011.
    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this
AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, England;
telephone 011 44 1332 242424; fax 011 44 1332 249936; Internet https://www.aeromanager.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by
reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 31, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-28422 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67689-67693]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27494]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30258; File No. 812-13731]

Fidelity Aberdeen Street Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

November 6, 2012.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application to amend a prior order under (a)
section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting
an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of
the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption
from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d)
of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint
arrangements (``Prior Order'').\1\

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

    \1\ Colchester Street Trust, et al., Investment Company Act
Release Nos. 24563 (Jul. 24, 2000) (notice) and 24602 (Aug. 21,
2000) (``Prior Order''), amending, Colchester Street Trust, et al.,
Investment Company Act Release Nos. 23787 (Apr. 15, 1999) (notice)
and 23831 (May 11, 1999) (order), superseding, Daily Money Fund, et
al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 17257 (Dec. 8, 1989)
(notice) and 17303 (Jan. 11, 1990) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of the Application: The Prior Order permitted certain
registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a
joint lending and borrowing facility. Applicants seek to amend the
Prior Order to modify the Rate Conditions (as defined below) and to
request an exemption from section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
    Applicants: Fidelity Aberdeen Street Trust; Fidelity Advisor Series
I; Fidelity Advisor Series II; Fidelity Advisor Series IV; Fidelity
Advisor Series VII; Fidelity Advisor Series VIII; Fidelity Beacon
Street Trust; Fidelity Boylston Street Trust; Fidelity California
Municipal Trust; Fidelity California Municipal Trust II; Fidelity
Capital Trust; Fidelity Central Investment Portfolios LLC; Fidelity
Central Investment Portfolios II LLC; Fidelity Charles Street Trust;
Fidelity Colchester Street Trust; Fidelity Commonwealth Trust; Fidelity
Commonwealth Trust II; Fidelity Concord Street Trust; Fidelity

Contrafund; Fidelity Court Street Trust; Fidelity Court Street Trust
II; Fidelity Covington Trust; Fidelity Destiny Portfolios; Fidelity
Devonshire Trust; Fidelity Financial Trust; Fidelity Garrison Street
Trust; Fidelity Hanover Street Trust; Fidelity Hastings Street Trust;
Fidelity Hereford Street Trust; Fidelity Income Fund; Fidelity
Investment Trust; Fidelity Magellan Fund; Fidelity Massachusetts
Municipal Trust; Fidelity Money Market Trust; Fidelity Mt. Vernon
Street Trust; Fidelity Municipal Trust; Fidelity Municipal Trust II;
Fidelity New York Municipal Trust; Fidelity New York Municipal Trust
II; Fidelity Newbury Street Trust; Fidelity Oxford Street Trust;
Fidelity Phillips Street Trust; Fidelity Puritan Trust; Fidelity Revere
Street Trust; Fidelity Salem Street Trust; Fidelity School Street
Trust; Fidelity Securities Fund; Fidelity Select Portfolios; Fidelity
Summer Street Trust; Fidelity Trend Fund; Fidelity Union Street Trust;
Fidelity Union Street Trust II; Variable Insurance Products Fund;
Variable Insurance Products Fund II; Variable Insurance Products Fund
III; Variable Insurance Products Fund IV; Variable Insurance Products
Fund V; (each, a ``Trust'' and collectively, the ``Trusts''), and each
series of the Trusts; Fidelity Management & Research Company (``FMR
Co.''); Strategic Advisers, Inc. (``SAI'' and together with FMR Co. and
any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with FMR
Co., ``FMR''); and each registered open-end management investment
company or series thereof that in the future is advised or sub-advised
by FMR Co., SAI or another FMR entity (together, with each series of
the Trusts, each, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 11, 2009 and
amended on May 13, 2011, October 21, 2011, May 11, 2012, and October
19, 2012.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on November 30, 2012 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 82
Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6873 or Dalia Osman Blass, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Trust is formed as a business trust or limited liability
company under the laws of Massachusetts or Delaware, as applicable.
Each Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company.\2\ FMR Co., SAI or another FMR entity serves as
investment adviser or sub-adviser to each of the Funds. FMR Co. and SAI
are investment advisers registered under the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (``Advisers Act''). Any investment adviser to the Funds will be
registered under the Advisers Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All existing investment companies or series thereof advised
by FMR that are currently participating in the IFL Program have been
named as applicants (included in the term ``Funds''). Any other
existing or future investment companies or series thereof advised by
FMR that rely on the order will comply with the terms and conditions
of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Prior Order permits the Funds to participate in a credit
facility administered by FMR (the ``IFL Program''). The IFL Program
enables the Funds to lend money to each other for temporary purposes,
such as when redemptions exceed anticipated levels. The IFL Program is
designed both to reduce the cost of borrowing for the Funds and enhance
the lending Funds' ability to earn higher rates of interest of
investment on their short-term balances. The Prior Order requires that
the interest rate for loans made through the IFL Program (the ``IFL
Rate'') be based on the average of: (a) the higher of the overnight
time deposit rate (the ``OTD Rate'') and the Funds' current overnight
repurchase agreement rate (the ``FICASH Rate''); \3\ and (b) a
benchmark rate representing the lowest bank loan rate available for
borrowing by the Funds (``Benchmark Rate''). The board of trustees
(each, a ``Fund Board'' and collectively, the ``Fund Boards'') of each
Fund, including a majority of the trustees who are not ``interested
persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, (``Independent
Trustees'') establishes the Benchmark Rate, and, reviews, no less
frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the
Benchmark Rate. The Benchmark Rate is currently set each day based on
the average actual spread between the lowest quoted bank loan rate and
the Federal Funds rate over the previous 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FICASH is one or more joint accounts that were established
pursuant to Commission orders to enable the Funds to invest in
certain repurchase agreements. See Daily Money Fund, et al.,
Investment Company Act Release Nos. 19594 (Jul. 26, 1993) (notice)
and 19647 (Aug. 23, 1993) (order), amending, Daily Money Fund, et
al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 11962 (Sep. 29, 1981)
(notice) and 12061 (Nov. 27, 1981) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants state that their business purposes and operational
preferences over time have made inclusion of the OTD Rate in
calculation of the IFL Rate unnecessary. Therefore, applicants seek to
amend the Prior Order to eliminate the use of the OTD Rate in the IFL
Rate calculation provided in conditions 1 and 2 (``Rate Conditions'').
Applicants also request an exemption from section 17(a)(2) of the Act.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated
person of a registered investment company, or affiliated person of an
affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from the
registered investment company. Section 21(b) of the Act generally
prohibits any registered management company from lending money or other
property to any person, directly or indirectly, if that person controls
or is under common control with that company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the
Act defines an ``affiliated person'' of another person, in part, to be
any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with, such other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act
defines ``control'' as the ``power to exercise a controlling influence
over the management or policies of a company,'' but excludes
circumstances in which ``such power is solely the result of an official
position with such company.'' Because the Funds share a common
investment adviser or have an investment adviser

that is under common control with those of the other Funds, applicants
state that each Fund may be deemed to be under common control with all
the other Funds, and, therefore, an affiliated person of those Funds.
    2. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated
person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of
such a person, from selling securities or other property to the
investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally prohibits an
affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated
person of such a person, from purchasing securities or other property
from the investment company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act prohibits a
registered investment company from purchasing or otherwise acquiring
any security issued by any other investment company except in
accordance with the limitations set forth in that section.
    3. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits registered open-end
investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a
company is permitted to borrow from any bank, if immediately after the
borrowing, there is asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all
borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term
``senior security'' generally includes any bond, debenture, note or
similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing
indebtedness.
    4. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a
proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the
transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are
fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any
person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of
the investment company as recited in its registration statement and
with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act provides
that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that
the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of
section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent such exception is consistent with
the public interest and the protection of investors.
    5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally
prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or
any affiliated person of an affiliated person, when acting as
principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the company
participates unless the transaction is approved by the Commission. Rule
17d-1(b) provides that in passing upon applications filed under the
rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of a
registered investment company in a joint enterprise on the basis
proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of
the Act and the extent to which the company's participation is on a
basis different from or less advantageous than that of other
participants.
    6. Applicants request an order under (a) section 6(c) of the Act
granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b)
section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section
12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and
(d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit
certain joint arrangements. The requested order would amend the Rate
Conditions in the Prior Order and grant applicants an exemption from
section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
    7. As noted previously, applicants state that their business
purposes and operational preferences over time have made inclusion of
the OTD Rate in calculation of the IFL Rate unnecessary. Applicants
state further that the IFL Rate, as amended, would make it more likely
that lending Funds would receive a market rate of return in excess of
other market alternatives and that borrowing Funds would not be harmed
because they would only participate in the IFL Program if the IFL Rate
is lower than the lowest quoted bank loan rate. Applicants state that
the Rate Conditions will prove to be a more efficient means for
achieving savings to the Funds in connection with their routine daily
cash management activities and for providing Funds with alternative
sources of liquidity in times of substantial net redemption activity.
    8. Applicants also state that the IFL Program, as modified by the
Rate Conditions, will not involve any potential that one Fund might
receive a preferential interest rate to the disadvantage of another
Fund. Applicants state that under the IFL Program, as modified by the
Rate Conditions, rates will be set under a pre-established formula,
approved by the Fund Boards. Applicants state that all Funds
participating in the IFL Program, as revised by the Rate Conditions, on
any given day will receive the same interest rate.
    9. Applicants therefore submit that the modifications to the Rate
Conditions are necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
consistent with the protection of investors and the policy and
provisions of the Act, and meet the standards set forth in sections
6(c), 12(d)(1)(J), 17(b) and 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the
Act. Applicants represent that the transactions conducted subject to
the Rate Conditions would be reasonable and fair, would not involve
overreaching, and would be consistent with the investment policies of
the Funds and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants submit
further that each Fund's participation in the IFL Program would be
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
would be on a basis which is no different from, or less advantageous
than that of any other participant.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the
requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The IFL Rate to be charged to the Funds under the IFL Program
will be the average of: (a) the FICASH Rate and (b) the Benchmark Rate.
    2. On each business day, the Cash Management Services Department
(``Cash Management Department'') of Fidelity Service Company, Inc. will
compare the IFL Rate calculated as provided in condition 1 with the
FICASH Rate that day and all short-term borrowing rates quoted to any
of the Funds by any bank with which any Fund has a loan agreement. At
least three such quotations will be obtained each day in which any Fund
borrows through the IFL Program prior to such borrowing. The Cash
Management Department will make cash available for interfund loans only
if the IFL Rate is more favorable to the lending Fund than the FICASH
Rate and more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the lowest quoted
bank loan rate.
    3. If a Fund has outstanding borrowings, any interfund loans to the
Fund (i) will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than any
outstanding bank loan, (ii) will be secured at least on an equal
priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to
loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral, (iii)
will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in
any event not over seven days), and (iv) will provide that, if an event
of default by the Fund occurs under any agreement evidencing an
outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default will
automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund)
constitute an immediate event of default under the interfund

loan agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the loan (and
exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call
will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan
under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
    4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the IFL Program
if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the
interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided
that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender,
including but not limited to another Fund, the Fund's interfund
borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at
least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any
outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund's total
outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would
be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through
the IFL Program only on a secured basis. A Fund could not borrow
through the IFL Program or from any other source if its total
outstanding borrowings immediately after the interfund borrowing would
be more than 33\1/3\% of its total assets.
    5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may,
through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from
all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first
secure each outstanding interfund loan by the pledge of segregated
collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the
outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding
borrowings of a Fund with outstanding interfund loans exceed 10% of its
total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value
or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one
business day thereafter (i) repay all its outstanding interfund loans,
(ii) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total
assets, or (iii) secure each outstanding interfund loan by the pledge
of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of
the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total
outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at
which time the collateral called for by this condition shall no longer
be required. Until each interfund loan that is outstanding at any time
that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceed 10% is repaid or the
Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total
assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to market each
day and will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to
maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each
outstanding interfund loan at least equal to 102% of the outstanding
principal value of the interfund loan.
    6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the IFL Program if the
loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the IFL
Program to exceed 15% of the lending Fund's current net assets at the
time of the loan.
    7. A Fund's interfund loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of
the lending Fund's net assets.
    8. The duration of interfund loans will be limited to the time
required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more
than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be
treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
    9. Each interfund loan may be called on one business day's notice
by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
    10. A Fund's participation in the IFL Program must be consistent
with its investment objectives and limitations and organizational
documents. No Fund may borrow through the IFL Program unless the Fund
has a fundamental policy that prevents the Fund from borrowing for
other than temporary or emergency purposes (and not for leveraging),
except that certain Funds may engage in reverse repurchase agreements
for any purpose.
    11. The Cash Management Department will calculate total Fund
borrowing and lending demand through the IFL Program, and allocate
loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention
of any portfolio manager of the Funds. The Cash Management Department
will not solicit cash for the IFL Program from any Fund or
prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio
managers. Cash amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand
will be invested in FICASH, or in shares of one or more money market
funds that are advised by FMR Co. or another FMR entity, or will be
returned to be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the
Funds.
    12. FMR will monitor the IFL Rate and the other terms and
conditions of the interfund loans and will make a quarterly report to
the Fund Boards concerning the participation of the Funds in the IFL
Program and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit
under the IFL Program.
    13. Each Fund Board, including a majority of the Independent
Trustees, will:
    (a) Review, no less frequently than quarterly, each Fund's
participation in the IFL Program during the preceding quarter for
compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such
transactions,
    (b) Establish the Benchmark Rate formula used to determine the
interest rate on interfund loans, and review, no less frequently than
annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Benchmark Rate formula,
and
    (c) Review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing
appropriateness of each Fund's participation in the IFL Program.
    14. In the event an interfund loan is not paid according to its
terms and such default is not cured within two business days from its
maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment
under the provisions of the interfund loan agreement, FMR will promptly
refer such loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected
by each Fund Board involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of
disputes concerning interfund loans.\4\ The arbitrator will resolve any
problem promptly, and the arbitrator's decision will be binding on both
Funds. The arbitrator will submit, at least annually, a written report
to the Fund Boards setting forth a description of the nature of any
dispute and the actions taken by the Funds to resolve the dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the dispute involves Funds with different Fund Boards,
the respective Fund Board will select an independent arbitrator that
is satisfactory to each Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Each Fund will maintain and preserve, for a period of not less
than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction
by it under the IFL Program occurred, the first two years in an easily
accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting
forth a description of the terms of the transactions, including the
amount, the maturity and the IFL Rate, the rate of interest available
at the time on overnight repurchase agreements and commercial bank
borrowings, and such other information presented to the Fund's
respective Fund Board in connection with the review required by
conditions 12 and 13.
    16. Each Fund's independent auditors, in connection with their
audit examination of the Fund, will review the operation of the IFL
Program for compliance with the conditions of the application and their
review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on
internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR. Applicants will report on
the operations of the IFL Program at the Fund Board meetings on a
quarterly basis.

    17. No Fund will be permitted to participate in the IFL Program
unless the Fund has fully disclosed in its prospectus and/or statement
of additional information all material facts about its intended
participation.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27494 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34148-34149]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-477-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that on May 10, 2023, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, LLC (NGPL), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and NGPL's blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-402-000, seeking authorization to abandon in-place its
Compressor Station 158 (CS 158) located in Dewey County, Oklahoma
(Compressor Station 158 Abandonment Project).
    Specifically, NGPL states that the project consists of abandoning
in-place CS 158 facilities including a 2,745 HP compressor unit, fuel
gas heater, dehydrator, control room, auxiliary building, odorizer,
positive meter, waste sump tank, waste oil storage tank, water well,
meter building, and gas reservoir tank. NGPL states that the project
will allow abandonment of CS 158 facilities that are no longer required
due to the changes in receipt and delivery points utilized by shippers
on its system and the current operating conditions of its Mountain View
to Minneola (M&M) Line, coupled with the steady decline since 2011 of
gas produced in the Granite Wash producing area in the Anadarko Basin.
Thus, NGPL asserts that the operation of CS 158 is not needed to meet
its existing firm contractual commitments, and NGPL does not anticipate
CS 158 will be needed to meet future service obligations. NGPL
estimates the total cost of the Project to be $177,000, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open for public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request should be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, for Kinder Morgan Inc., as
Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 2 North Nevada
Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 18, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is July 18, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 18, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before July 18, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-477-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the

Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's
website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New
eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-477-000.

To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
To file via any other method: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Francisco
Tarin, Director, Regulatory, for Kinder Morgan Inc., as Operator of
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 2 North Nevada Avenue,
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, or [email protected].
Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the
applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: May 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11241 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Appendix B: Conformity-Related Research

Considered for This ICR

The following is the conformity research studies that were considered
for this ICR.  EPA has cited in the ICR when these studies were utilized
as appropriate.

April 2003, “Transportation/Air Quality Issues in Rural Areas,” FHWA
and Dye Management Group.

October 2003, “Rural Conformity: A Survey of Practice,” NCHRP and
ICF Consulting.

	Projects that are exempt from all or certain conformity requirements
include projects listed in 40 CFR 93.126 (e.g., safety projects,
maintenance of current roads), projects that do not impact regional
emissions in 40 CFR 93.127, and traffic signal synchronization projects
listed in 40 CFR 93.128.

 Per the transportation conformity rule, submitted SIP budgets are
appropriate to use prior to EPA’s approval of the SIP when EPA
declares them adequate for transportation conformity purposes (40 CFR
93.118(e) and (f)).

 EPA, in consultation with DOT, concluded that it would be advantageous
to join transportation conformity burden estimates for all pollutants
into one ICR.  EPA notes that the DOT ICR for Metropolitan and
State-wide Planning estimated only the reduction in cost for
transportation conformity requirements due to efficiencies resulting
from SAFETEA-LU.  DOT did not include total burden estimates for
transportation conformity in its ICR.  Based upon DOT ICR cost
estimates, EPA has determined that DOT total annual state and local
respondent transportation conformity cost associated with their ICR is
approximately $15,089,550.

 The effective date for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard was December 18,
2006.  EPA anticipates making nonattainment designations for the
standard no later than December 18, 2008, with a possible extension up
to one year (but no later than three years after the effective date of
the standard).

 MPO means the policy board of an organization created and designated to
carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process.

 In 2005, SAFETEA-LU was enacted which amended Title 23 of United States
Code and Federal Transit Laws.  In this ICR, EPA has accounted for
changes that generally made the conformity process more efficient.

 EPA promulgated a more stringent 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on October 17,
2006 (71 FR 61144), as described later in this ICR.

 Areas may be nonattainment/maintenance for more than one pollutant;
therefore, there is some overlap in the number of areas which are
nonattainment/maintenance for a pollutant and also
nonattainment/maintenance for another pollutant.

  The 1-hour ozone standard, as well as designations and classifications
for all 1-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas, have been
revoked except for the Greensboro, NC, Nashville, TN, and Denver, CO
1-hour maintenance areas which are participating in the 8-hour ozone
Early Action Compact program.  These three areas are required to
continue to determine conformity for the 1-hour ozone standard.  They
will remain 1-hour ozone maintenance areas until one year after the
effective date of their 8-hour ozone designations.

  The PM2.5 areas referred to in this table were designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air quality standards on January 5,
2005.

 The number of MPOs estimated in the following tables is based upon
information collected from EPA Regional Offices, Federal Register Vol.
67, No. 84, May 1, 2002 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Qualifying Urban Areas for Census 2000 and Federal Register Vol. 67, No.
130, July 8, 2002, Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration/Federal Highway Administration Designation of
Transportation Management Areas.

Per the conformity rule (§93.123(b)(1)), projects of local air quality
concern include: (i) New or expanded highway projects that have a
significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles; (ii)
Projects affecting intersections that are at Level-of-Service D, E, or F
because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel
vehicles related to the project; (iii) New bus and rail terminals and
transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles
congregating at a single location; (iv) Expanded bus and rail terminals
and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel
vehicles congregating at a single location; and, (v) Projects in or
affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified
in the PM10 or PM2.5 applicable SIP or SIP submission as appropriate, as
sites of violation or possible violation.

 EPA and FHWA have provided guidance for those areas required to do
qualitative hot-spot analyses for PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas:  “Transportation Conformity Guidance for
Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas”,  EPA420-B-06-922

		EPA estimates that seven state and local agencies participate in one
consultation meeting on each transportation project.

	Isolated rural areas are not required by federal law to develop
metropolitan transportation plans or TIPs.

	EPA estimates that four state and local agencies would participate in
one consultation meeting on each transportation project.

 In the July 2004 supporting statement, we estimated 140 or 160 hours of
start-up time (depending on number of pollutants for which the area was
nonattainment) to account for training staff people in regulations which
at that point were new.

	 For more information on CBSAs, see the U.S. Census Bureau website at:
 HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html."
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html.

 State and local agency representatives from many new nonattainment
areas may attend conformity training courses such as the National
Transit Institutes’ conformity training course entitled,
“Introduction to Transportation/Air Quality Conformity.”  This
three-day course offers an in-depth overview of the criteria and
procedures for implementing conformity and is designed for federal,
state, and local agencies involved in the conformity process.

	Isolated rural areas are not required by federal law to develop
metropolitan transportation plans or TIPs.

	EPA estimates that four state and local agencies would participate in
one consultation meeting on each transportation project.

	 January 2007 U.S. Office of Personal Management, Salary Table 2007-GS,
2007 General Schedule, http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/indexGS.asp

	 January 2007 U.S. Office of Personal Management, Salary Table 2007-GS,
2007 General Schedule ,http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/indexGS.asp, .

 EPA’s survey of federal field offices found that FTA spent minimal
time on conformity-related work

 EPA’s survey of federal field offices found that FTA spent minimal
time on conformity-related work.

	 EPA will find a budget adequate if the following minimum criteria is
met: (i)The submitted SIP is endorsed by the Governor or his/her
designee and has been subject to a state public hearing; (ii)
Interagency consultation took place and any EPA stated concerns have
been addressed; (iii) The budget is clearly identified and precisely
quantified; (iv) The budget, when considered with all other emissions
sources, is consistent with applicable SIP requirements; (v) The budget
is consistent with and is clearly related to the emissions inventory and
submitted SIP control measures; and, (vi) Revisions to a previously
submitted SIP explain and document any changes to the previous budget
and control measures, impacts on point and source emissions, and any
changes to established safety margins and reasons for those changes

	 January 2007 U.S. Office of Personal Management, Salary Table 2007-GS,
2007 General Schedule, http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/indexGS.asp, .

 EPA’s survey of federal field offices found that FTA spent minimal
time on conformity-related work

 To obtain bottom-line costs associated with conformity determinations
(Table 48), EPA multiplied the bottom-line burden hours in Table 47 by
estimated hourly labor costs of $54.93 and then added $20,650 in Federal
Register notice publication costs from Table 37 to reach the bottom line
annual cost of $3,876,133.

   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/nonattain/8hrozonepages/
index.htm"
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/nonattain/8hrozonepages/i
ndex.htm ;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/nonattain/pm25pages/inde
x.htm"
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/nonattain/pm25pages/index
.htm


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12054-12055]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05052]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74388; File No. 4-657]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on the Proposed National Market System Plan To
Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program on a One-Year Pilot Basis by BATS
Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,
EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE
Arca, Inc.

February 26, 2015.
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of BATS Exchange,
Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, and The
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively, the ``Participants''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and
Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,\2\ a proposed national market
system (``NMS'') Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program On a One-
Year Pilot Basis (``Plan'').\3\ The proposed Plan was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014.\4\ The Commission
has received 74 comment letters on the proposed Plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President, NYSE Group
Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated August 25, 2014.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3,
2014), 79 FR 66423.
    \5\ See Letters from Shawn Leary, dated August 24, 2014; Tony
BenBrahim, dated August 24, 2014; John Richardson, dated August 26,
2014; Arthur T. Ling, dated August 26, 2014; Dan Blecha, dated
August 26, 2014; Tom Sosnoff, dated August 27, 2014; Michael Choffy,
dated August 28, 2014; Joseph Runsdorf, dated August 29, 2014; Tony
J. Gagliano, dated September 1, 2014; Howard L. Greenblatt, dated
September 2, 2014; Ernest Callipari, dated September 2, 2014 ; Ali
Bangura, dated September 3, 2014; Tony J. Gagliano, dated September
3, 2014; Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel of SIFMA, dated September 9, 2014; John C. Nagel, Managing
Director and Sr. Deputy General Counsel of Citadel, LLC, dated
September 12, 2014; Christopher Nagy, CEO, and Dave Lauer,
President, KOR Group LLC, dated September 15, 2014; Stuart J.
Kaswell, Executive Vice President & Managing Director, General
Counsel of Managed Funds Association, dated September 20, 2014; John
Daley, Chairman of the Board and James Toes, President & CEO of
Security Traders Association, dated September 23, 2014; Brian A.
Johnson, Executive Director for Research of Committee on Capital
Markets Regulation, dated September 26, 2014; Jeffrey P. Ricker,
dated October 6, 2014; David Adorney, Professional Equity Trader,
dated November 11, 2014; Richard B. Gorelick, CEO of RGM Advisors,
LLC, dated November 13, 2014; Representative Sean P. Duffy, U.S.
House of Representatives, dated November 17, 2014; Joseph Galinskie,
dated November 18, 2014; Tom Quaadman, Vice President, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, dated
November 20, 2014; David Shields, Vice Chairman & Co-CEO, Wellington
Shields & Co., dated December 2, 2014; Dave Weild, Chairman & CEO,
IssuWorks, Inc., dated December 3, 2014; Tim Quast, President,
ModernNetworks IR, LLC, dated December 8, 2014; Larry Tabb, Founder
& CEO, Tabb Group, dated December 10, 2014; John Endean, President,
American Business Conference, dated December 12, 2014; Scott Kupor,
Managing Partner, Andreessen Horowitz and Jeffrey M. Solomon, CEO
Cowen and Company, Equity Capital Formation Task Force, dated
December 18, 2014; Eduardo A. Repetto, Vice Chairman & Co-CEO,
Dimensional Fund Advisors, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chief
Investment Officer, Dimensional Fund Advisors, dated December 18,
2014; Sal Arnuk & Joseph Saluzzi, Partners and Co-Founders, Themis
Trading, LLC, dated December 19, 2014; Simon D. Yates, CEO, Two
Sigma Securities, LLC, dated December 19, 2014; Mortimer J. Buckley,
Managing Director and Chief and Investment Officer, The Vanguard
Group, Inc., dated December 19, 2014; Rob Flatley, CEO and Dave
Weisberger, Managing Director, Head of Market Structure Analysis,
CoreOne Technologies LLC, submitted December 19, 2014; Alan F. Hill,
CEO and William K. Jones, Executive Chairman, JonesTrading
Institutional Services LLC, dated December 19, 2014; R. Glenn
Hubbard, Co-Chair, John L. Thornton, Co-Chair and Hal S. Scott,
Director, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, dated December
19, 2014; John Daley, Chairman of the Board and James Toes,
President & CEO, Security Traders Association, dated December 19,
2014; John McCarthy, General Counsel, KCG Holdings, Inc., dated
December 19, 2014; Douglas A. Cifu, Chief Executive Officer, Virtu
Financial, dated December 19, 2014; E. Cartier Esham, Executive Vice
President, Emerging Companies, Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO), dated December 22, 2014; Micah Hauptman, Financial Services
Counsel, Consumer Federation of America, dated December 22, 2014;
Bobby Franklin, President & CEO, National Venture Capital
Association, dated December 22, 2014; Eric Swanson, General Counsel
& Secretary, BATS Global Markets, Inc. dated December 22, 2014;
Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
December 22, 2014; Daniel G. Weaver, Ph.D., Professor of Finance,
Director, Master of Financial Analysis Program, Associate Director,
Whitcomb Center for Research in Financial Services, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey, dated December 22, 2014; Stuart J.
Kaswell, Executive Vice President & Managing Director, General
Counsel, Managed Funds Association, dated December 22, 2014; Kurt N.
Schacht, Managing Director and James C. Allen, Head; CFA Institute,
dated December 22, 2014; Robert J. McCarthy, Director of Regulatory
Policy, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, dated December 22, 2014; Daniel
Keegan, Managing Director, Head of Equities for the Americas,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., dated December 22, 2014; Richie
Prager, Managing Director; Hubert DeJesus, Managing Director;
Supurna Vedbrat, Managing Director; Joanne Medero, Managing
Director, BlackRock, Inc., dated December 22, 2014; Adam Sussman,
Head of Market Structure, Liquidnet, Inc., dated December 22, 2014;
Manisha Kimmel, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum,
dated December 22, 2014; Tom Quaadman, Vice President, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, dated
December 22, 2014; Ari Burstein, Senior Counsel, Investment Company
Institute, dated December 22, 2014; Jeff Brown, Senior Vice
President, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Charles Schwab & Co.,
Inc., dated December 22, 2014; Kimberly Unger, CEO and Executive
Director, Security Traders Association of New York, dated December
22, 2014; Scott C. Goebel, Senior Vice President & General Counsel,
Fidelity Management & Research Co., dated December 22, 2014; Dennis
Dick, CFA, Head, Equity Market Structure, Bright Trading LLC, dated
December 22, 2014; Raymond M. Tierney III, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Gary Stone, Chief Strategy Officer, Bloomberg
Tradebook LLC dated December 22, 2014; Mao Ye, Assistant Professor
of Finance, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, dated December
22, 2014; Paul J. Jiganti, Managing Director, Market Structure and
Client Advocacy and John S. Markle, Deputy General Counsel--Retail
and Clearing Operations, TD Ameritrade, Inc., dated December 22,
2014; James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, Associate Professor of Finance,
Georgetown University dated December 22, 2014; Christopher Nagy and
Dave Lauer, KOR Group, LLC dated December 22, 2014; James G. Ongena,
General Counsel, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., dated December 22,
2014; Andrew Stevens, General Counsel, IMC Financial Markets, dated
December 30, 2014; Michael Jacejko, Chief Executive Manager, Birch
Bay Capital, LLC, dated December 31, 2014; James P. Selway III,
Managing Director, Head of Electronic Brokerage, ITG Inc., dated
January 5, 2015; John C. Nagel, Managing Director & Sr. Deputy
General Counsel, Citadel LLC, dated January 5, 2015; Thomas Wittman,
Executive Vice President, The NASDAQ OMX Group, LLC, dated January
16, 2015; Brendon J. Weiss, Co-Head Government Affairs, NYSE, LLC,
dated January 16, 2015; Senators Mark R. Warner and Pat Toomey, The
United States Senate, dated January 23, 2015; Daniel Zinn, General
Counsel, OTC Markets Group Inc., dated February 24, 2015. Copies of
all comment letters received on the proposed Plan are available on
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-657/4-657.shtml and http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/tick-size-study/tick-size-study.shtml. Comments are also 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. EST.

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

    Rule 608 \6\ under Section 11A of the Act \7\ provides that within
120 days of the date of publication of notice of filing of a NMS plan
or an amendment to an effective NMS plan, or within such longer period
as the Commission may designate up to 180 days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or as to which the sponsors consent, the Commission shall
approve such plan or amendment, with such changes or subject to such
conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate, if it
finds that such plan or amendment is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The 120th day for the proposed Plan is March
7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby extends the time period for Commission action
on the proposed Plan from the 120th day and designates May 6, 2015,
which is the 180th day for the proposed Plan, as the time period for
Commission action. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to
designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed
Plan because the extension will provide the Commission with additional
time to consider, and take action in light of, among other things, the
comments received on the proposed Plan.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \8\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\9\ the Commission designates May 6, 2015 as the date for
Commission action on the proposed Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05052 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80067-80069]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0971]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; New Year's Fireworks Show, Savannah River, Savannah,
GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Savannah River around Savannah, GA for the
Savannah's Waterfront New Year's Eve event. The safety zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by fallout from the fireworks display. Entry
of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11 p.m. on December 31, 2022,
through 00:30 a.m., on January 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0971 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Ashley Schad, of the Marine Safety Unit Savannah
Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 231, or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule 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 primary justification for this
action is that the Coast Guard did not receive final details of the
event until December 8, 2022 and the event is scheduled to begin on
December 31, 2022. The event would begin before the rulemaking process
would be completed. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule. Because of the dangers posed by the fireworks
display, a safety zone is necessary without delay. It is impracticable
and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule
because it is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks
display adjacent to a major shipping channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Savannah (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on the Savannah
River, near downtown Savannah, starting 11:00 p.m. on December 31,
2022, through 00:30 a.m., on January 1, 2023 will be a safety concern
for anyone within the area. This rule is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the
safety zone during the New Year's Eve Fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 11 p.m. on
December 31, 2022, through 00:30 a.m., on January 1, 2023. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters in the Savannah River adjacent to
downtown Savannah. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
fallout from the New Year's Eve Fireworks display. No vessel or person
will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is
granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
reasons: (1) the safety zone only being enforced for a total of one
hour and thirty minutes; (2) although persons and vessels may not
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without
authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may
operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3)
persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by
the COTP or a designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 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 involves This
rule involves a safety zone lasting only one hour and thirty minutes
that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of the
Savannah River. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0971 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0971  Safety Zone; New Year's Fireworks Show, Savannah
River, Savannah, GA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Savannah River, from surface to bottom, bounded by a line drawn
from a point located at 32[deg]4'56.79'' N, 0 81[deg]5'18.24'' W,
thence to 32[deg]05'10'' N, 081[deg]05'39'' W, thence to 32[deg]05'04''
N, 081[deg]05'30'' W, thence to 32[deg]04'57'' N, 081[deg]05'34'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Savannah (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the safety zone may contact COTP Savannah by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
is granted by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and
on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from from 11
p.m. on December 31, 2022, through 00:30 a.m., on January 1, 2023.

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
K.A. Broyles,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2022-28236 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P