[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22002]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07851]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94625; File No. SR-OCC-2022-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Options Clearing Corporation's
Governance Arrangements

    April 7, 2022.

    On February 7, 2022, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2022-002 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder to amend certain
of its governing documents by (1) clarifying that OCC's public
directors may not be affiliated with any designated contract market or
futures commission merchant; (2) allowing OCC's board of directors
(``Board'') to delegate certain authorities to Board-level committees
(``Committees'') or officers; (3) amending OCC's by-laws with regard to
stockholder consent; and (4) applying additional housekeeping
amendments to the Board Charter and Committee Charters.\3\ The Proposed
Rule Change was published for public comment in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2022.\4\ The Commission received a comment regarding the
Proposed Rule Change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Notice of Filing infra note 4, 87 FR at 10881.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94283 (Feb. 18, 2022),
87 FR 10881 (Feb. 25, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-002) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \5\ The comment on the Proposed Rule Change is available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-002/srocc2022002.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2)(i) of the Exchange Act \6\ provides that, within
45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved unless
the Commission extends the period within which it must act as provided
in Section 19(b)(2)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\7\ Section 19(b)(2)(ii) of
the Exchange Act allows the Commission to designate a longer period for
review (up to 90 days from the publication of notice of the filing of a
proposed rule change) if the Commission finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which
the self-regulatory organization consents.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(i).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(ii).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 45th day after publication of the Notice of Filing is April 11,
2022. In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to
consider the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Change and therefore is extending this 45-day time
period.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\9\ designates May 26, 2022 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule change SR-OCC-2022-
002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

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

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07851 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39695-39696]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 1975-102 and 2061-086]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the
applications for amendment of the licenses for the Bliss Project (FERC
No. 1975) and Lower Salmon Falls Project (FERC No. 2061) and has
prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment. The projects are located on
the Snake River in Gooding, Twin Falls, and Elmore Counties, Idaho.
Both projects occupy lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Lower Salmon Falls Project also occupies lands within the Hagerman
Fossil Beds National Monument managed by the National Park Service.
    The Draft Environmental Assessment contains the Commission staff's
analysis

of the potential environmental effects of the proposed change from run-
of-river to load-following operations of the projects and concludes
that authorizing the amendments, with appropriate environmental
protective measures would not constitute a major federal action that
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the Draft Environmental Assessment is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the docket numbers P-
1975-102 and P-2061-086.
    For further information, contact Rachel Price by telephone at 202-
502-8907 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16367 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55174]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0352; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Sitka, AK; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on July 31, 2020. The
rule modified Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sitka
Rocky Gutierrez Airport. The final rule also established a Class E
airspace area, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E
surface area. The legal definition for the Class E airspace, designated
as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, did not
accurately establish this area outside of the Class E airspace
designated as a surface area. This action corrects the legal definition
for the Class E airspace area, designated as an extension to a Class D
or Class E surface area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (85 FR
45997; July 31, 2020) for Docket FAA-2020-0352 amending Class E
airspace designated as a surface area and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. The rule also established Class
E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface
area. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified an error in how the
Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E
surface area, is described. This action corrects that error.
    Class E4 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment
of the Class E Airspace; Sitka, AK, published in the Federal Register
of July 31, 2020 (85 FR 45997), FR Doc. 2020-16314, is corrected as
follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 45997, in the third column, in The Rule, the description of
the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E
surface area is corrected to read as follows: That airspace extending
upward from the surface from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport within
4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 315[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from 0.9 miles northwest of the airport and
extending to 28.3 miles northwest of Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport.

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 45998, in the first and second column, in AAL AK E4 Sitka,
AK [New] the airspace legal description is corrected to read as
follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface from the 4.1-
mile radius of the airport within 4 miles north and 8 miles south of
the 315[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from 0.9 miles
northwest of the airport and extending to 28.3 miles northwest of Sitka
Rocky Gutierrez Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 28, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-19460 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11875-11876]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0178; FRL-8815-4]

Spirotetramat; Receipt of Applications for Emergency Exemptions,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received specific exemption requests from the states
of Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington,
to use the pesticide spirotetramat (CAS No. 203313-25-1) to treat
onion, dry bulb to control thrips. The applicants are proposing the use
of a chemical whose registration was recently vacated. EPA is
soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to
grant the exemptions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0178 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0178. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri Grinstead, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. Colorado, Idaho,
Michigan, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington have requested that
the Administrator issue specific exemptions for the use of
spirotetramat (CAS No. 203313-25-1) on onion, dry bulb, to control
thrips. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as
part of these requests, and is available for review at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID Number 2010-0178.
    In 2009, all of the applicants submitted first-time exemption
requests for the use of spirotetramat on dry bulb onions to control
thrips. Based on the information provided in those 2009 applications,
the Agency concurred with the applicants that spirotetramat was
necessary to ensure thrips control in areas experiencing thrips
resistant to available alternatives and, in particular, where 6 to 8
seasonal applications of alternative pesticides are required to achieve
adequate control. Thrips are sucking insects and growers are concerned
about managing them because their feeding behavior can vector a plant
disease known as Iris Yellow Spot Virus. At this time, managing the
disease vector thrips is the grower's main strategy for controlling
Iris Yellow Spot Virus. The Agency has confirmed this as an urgent,
non-routine situation with potential for significant economic losses
requiring the use of spirotetramat. As part of their 2010
recertification requests, the applicants assert that the emergency
conditions described in their 2009 applications continue to exist. EPA
will review the applications and other available data. The 2009 and
2010 application packages for each state are available for review at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID Number 2010-0178. Summary use
information for each state in this unit.
    1. Colorado: The Colorado Department of Agriculture proposes to
make no more than 2 applications of Movento (which contains 22.4%
spirotetramat) on a maximum of 10,000 acres of onion, dry bulb between
May 16 and September 30, 2010 in the Colorado counties of Adams,
Boulder, Larimer, Morgan, Weld, Baca, Bent, Crowley, Otero, Prowers,
Pueblo, Delta, and Montrose.
    2. Idaho: The Idaho State Department of Agriculture proposes to
make no more than 2 applications of Movento on a maximum of 9,000 acres
of onion, dry bulb between May 15 and September 15, 2010 in the Idaho
counties of Ada, Canyon, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington.
    3. Michigan: The Michigan Department of Agriculture proposes to
make no more than 2 applications of Movento on a maximum of 3,800 acres
of onion, dry bulb between June and September, 2010 in Michigan.
    4. New York: The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation proposes to make no more than 2 applications of Movento on
a maximum of 13,000 acres of onion, dry bulb between June 1, and
September 15, 2010 in Orange, Orleans, Genesee, Oswego, Madison, Lewis,
Herkimer, Steuben, Yates, Ontario, Wayne, and other counties of New
York State.
    5. Oregon: The Oregon Department of Agriculture proposes to make no
more than 2 applications of Movento on a maximum of 21,900 acres of
onion, dry bulb between April 15 and September 15, 2010 in the Oregon
counties of Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Clackamas, Marion, and Klamath.
    6. Utah: The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food proposes to
make no more than 2 applications of Movento on a maximum of 1,753 acres
of onion, dry bulb between June 1 and September 1, 2010 in the Utah
counties of Box Elder, Weber, and Davis.
    7. Washington: The Washington State Department of Agriculture
proposes to make no more than 2 applications of Movento on a maximum
20,000 acres of onion, dry bulb between May 15 and September 15, 2010
in the Washington counties of Adams, Benton, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas,
Klickitat, Walla Walla, and Yakima.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
applications themselves, but provides an opportunity for public comment
on the applications. EPA has determined that publication of a notice of
receipt of these applications for specific exemptions is appropriate
taking into consideration the December 23, 2009 decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York vacating the
registration of the spirotetramat product that is the subject of these
emergency exemption requests. This vacatur is available for review at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID Number 2010-0178.
    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during
the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific
exemptions requested by the states of Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New
York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-5493 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62493]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-88-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Revised
Schedule for Environmental Review of the Abandonment and Capacity
Restoration Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) staff's revised schedule for the completion of the
environmental assessment (EA) for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C.'s (Tennessee) Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project. The
first notice of schedule, issued on June 30, 2016, identified September
2, 2016 as the EA issuance date. However, Tennessee provided
modifications to the proposed facilities that require additional time
for staff to consider. Therefore, staff has revised the schedule for
issuance of the EA.

Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of the EA: November 2, 2016.
    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline: January 31, 2017.
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp).

    Dated: September 2, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21748 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31798-31799]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0166]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; MBI
Energy Services

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that MBI Energy Services (MBI) has requested
an exemption from the requirement that a motor carrier install and
require each of its drivers to use an electronic logging device (ELD)
to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS) no later than December
18, 2017. MBI requests the exemption for all of its vehicles equipped
with a single-passenger cab, which are used in applications where
travel is incidental to normal work activities and which require
special oversize/overweight permits to travel on public roads. These
vehicles are classified in the State of North Dakota as Special Mobile
Equipment (SME). According to MBI, single cabs have reduced space for
installing rough-terrain-capable automatic on-board recording devices
(AOBRDs) or ELDs. MBI believes that the exemption, if granted, would
not have any adverse impacts on operational safety, as drivers would
remain subject to the standard HOS limits and maintain a paper record
of duty status (RODS). The term of the requested exemption is 5 years.
FMCSA requests public comment on MBI's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0166 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2017-0166), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0166'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    MBI (USDOT 261829) is a provider of water management logistics and
well-intervention services in North Dakota,

South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado. The requested exemption
would affect 65 MBI Energy Services drivers operating 42 single-cab
vehicles classified in North Dakota as Special Mobile Equipment (SME).
These vehicles meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
in 49 CFR 390.5 and therefore are subject to the ELD or AOBRD mandate.
These specialized vehicles perform various work activities in an
environment where connectivity is limited, working and road conditions
are rough, and the necessity for driving on public roads is sporadic
and incidental to the overall work being performed. The vehicles may
sit on work locations for long periods of time, up to weeks or even
months. These vehicles are typically oversize and overweight requiring
special permits for transport. Many States do not require registration,
as they build the registration fees into the permit process.
    Examples of SMEs meeting the definition of a CMV having a single
cab include cranes, workover rigs, and swab units. Single cabs have
reduced space for installing rough-terrain-capable AOBRDs or ELDs. The
devices used must be capable of satellite communication where cell
communication is poor to non-existent. The installation of rugged
logging units, weighing more than typical units used in highway
applications, would reduce driver visibility in an already large
vehicle due to the limited space found in single-cab vehicles.
Additionally, the installation and rough terrain upon which the
vehicles travel may require a unit being installed over the driver's
head, increasing the risk of the unit falling on the driver resulting
in injury or a vehicle accident involving the travelling public.
    While these vehicles normally travel little, business demand may
require MBI vehicles to move more often than 8 days in a 30-day period,
the maximum frequency allowed by 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) for the
use of paper RODS instead of ELDs. According to MBI, the current
regulations do not address circumstances where the vehicle's exemption
status is sporadic in nature, thus requiring MBI to install an ELD to
remain compliant during times not covered by the exemption. While
alternatives exist to industrial-grade logging units, the alternatives
usually involve cell phones or cell-capable tablets where the terrain
or remote locations of work may inhibit logging device communication
for extended periods of time. Many worksites prohibit cell phone usage
due to safety concerns. Additionally, installations in special vehicles
will increase costs substantially due to the unusual configurations of
single cab vehicles requiring specialized wiring harnesses and custom
installation kits.
    MBI states that the exemption would involve no additional costs
since current regulations require drivers to manually record duty
status, and that would not change under the exemption. Companies
operating single-cab special mobile equipment would realize savings
compared to the costs incurred to install custom hardware required for
industrial-grade logging units meeting the ELD mandate and the
subsequent monthly communication costs. MBI requests a 5-year
exemption.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    MBI states that it would continue to use paper logs if granted the
exemption and would require the driver to document on-duty and driving
times to ensure compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 395.
According to MBI, paper logs would be reviewed daily by supervisory
personnel to ensure regulatory compliance and appropriate fatigue
management. Because the vehicles are rarely driven and highly regulated
by States when being transported, with minimal highway exposure, the
driving public would not be adversely affected, and the safety of these
specialized vehicles would not be compromised due to unwieldy device
installations in an already cramped operator's compartment.
    A copy of MBI's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: July 3, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-14377 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59234-59236]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23634]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67895; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC Members
Agreement To Empower the Volume Dispute Committee To Establish
Principles for Determining Whether the Exchange Has Experienced a Bona
Fide Systems Problem and To Adjust Certain Volume Measurements
Accordingly

September 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 7, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC Members
Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to establish
principles for determining whether the Exchange has experienced a bona
fide systems problem and to adjust certain volume measurements
accordingly. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options LLC Members
Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to establish
principles for determining whether the Exchange has experienced a bona
fide systems problem and to adjust certain volume measurements
accordingly.
Background
    In 2011, NYSE MKT established NYSE Amex Options LLC (``Company''),
a Delaware limited liability company formed by NYSE Euronext, NYSE MKT,
and seven Founding Firms,\4\ and jointly owned by NYSE MKT and the
Founding Firms, to operate an options facility of the Exchange.\5\ The
governance structure of the Company is reflected in a Limited Liability
Company Agreement and a Members Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Founding Firms are Banc of America Strategic Investments
Corporation, Barclays Electronic Commerce Holdings Inc., Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Financial Strategies, Inc., Goldman, Sachs
& Co., Datek Online Management Corp., and UBS Americas Inc.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64742 (June 24, 2011),
76 FR 38436 (June 30, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Article II, Section 2.1 of the Members Agreement, for a
certain period, each Founding Firm must satisfy certain minimum volume
requirements with respect to trading on the options facility. Under the
Volume-Based Equity Plan, for each measurement period, the Company
issues Annual Incentive Shares. Each Founding Firm is entitled to
receive, for no additional consideration, a portion of the Annual
Incentive Shares such that it dilutes, maintains or increases its
equity interest in the Company (relative to the other Founding Firms)
based on the degree to which the Founding Firm has failed to achieve,
achieved or exceeded its ``Individual Target'' during the measurement
period. A Founding Firm's Individual Target is its pro rata portion of
an aggregate Founding Firm target contribution to the annual volume of
the options facility.
    Under Article I, Section 1.1 of the Members Agreement, the
Individual Target is defined as the product of (i) the Founding Firm
aggregate target market share for such measurement period multiplied by
(ii) such Founding Firm's Initial Class B Common Interests multiplied
by (iii) the Industry Volume for such measurement period. Industry
Volume is defined, with respect to any period, as the product of (x)
the aggregate U.S. listed securities option exchange volume of cleared
transactions in the Products (a contract that is listed for trading on
the Exchange) during such period, as reported by the OCC, that are
executed and cleared during such period multiplied by (y) two. However,
Industry Volume excludes (i) the volume of cleared transactions in the
Products during trading days on which trading on the Exchange is halted
for certain periods, and (ii) Strategic Transaction Volume, which is
designed to exclude certain strategy-based transactions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Article II, Section 2.1(h) of the Members Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article II, Section 2.4 of the Members Agreement authorizes the
Company to establish a Volume Dispute Committee, which has 15 members,
one chosen by each of the seven Founding Firms and the remaining eight
chosen by the Exchange. Article II, Section 2.4 empowers the Volume
Dispute Committee to (i) establish principles for determining the types
of transactions for which the Founding Firms are not eligible to
receive credit; (ii) establish principles for determining how
transaction credits should be allocated among or between the Founding
Firms; (iii) review and approve the Strategic Transaction Volume; and
(iv) otherwise determine certain other matters with respect to volume-
related disputes.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that if it is experiencing a bona fide
systems problem, then there may be situations in which such volume
should not be included in calculating Individual Targets or Industry
Volume. A bona fide systems problem could include, but is not limited
to, an erroneous input that causes the generation of quotes that are
substantially away from the quoted national best bid and offer or a
problem that causes severe latencies that do not rise to the level of a
trading halt but that interfere with a Founding Firm's ability to quote
or route orders. Because system problems can take many forms and may
not be predictable, the Exchange does not propose to attempt to define
what a systems problem is for this purpose. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the Volume Dispute Committee should be empowered to
establish principles for determining whether a bona fide systems
problem occurred on the options facility and for what time period. The
Exchange believes that providing the Volume Dispute Committee with such
authority will provide the necessary flexibility and structure to
resolve disputes about what volume should be counted in such
situations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that while it has procedures for
adjusting or busting certain trades under Rule 957NY [sic], there
may be certain instances in which bona fide systems issues have
occurred but where certain trades fall outside of this Rule or
otherwise are permitted to stand under the Rule, it would be
inequitable to include such trades in calculating Industry Volume or
a Founding Firm's Individual Target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Article II, Section 2.4(a) of
the Members Agreement to empower the Volume Dispute Committee to
establish principles for determining whether the Exchange has
experienced a bona fide systems problem, and the time period of such
bona fide systems problem. In Article 1, Section 1.1 of the Members
Agreement, the Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of
Industry Volume to provide that the computation of volume would exclude
the volume of

cleared transactions in the Products during a period of time in which
the Exchange experienced a bona fide systems problem. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to amend Section 2.3(a), which establishes a
methodology for determining whether a Founding Firm has met its
Individual Target, to provide that credits would not be awarded for any
transactions executed during a period of time in which the Exchange
experienced a bona fide systems problem.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\8\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of
trade by making the calculations of Individual Target and Industry
Volume fairer by authorizing the Volume Dispute Committee to establish
principles for excluding transactions that occurred while bona fide
systems problems were occurring. The Exchange believes that such
principles will help to foster cooperation among the Founding Firms and
remove impediments to a free and open market, further encouraging the
Founding Firms to bring order flow to the Exchange and thus promoting
liquidity for all investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-47 and should be
submitted on or before October 17, 2012.

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

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23634 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50867-50869]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20204]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0572; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-027-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-22-10,
which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C,
and -300 series airplanes. AD 98-22-10 currently requires repetitive
inspections for cracking of the aft frame and frame support structure
of the forward service doorway, and repair if necessary. AD 98-22-10
also provides for an optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of that AD. Since we issued AD 98-22-10, we
have determined that additional inspections are needed, and that
additional airplanes may be subject to the identified unsafe condition.
This proposed AD would add inspections and add airplanes to the
applicability. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD provides a
preventive modification, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the aft frame and frame support structure of the forward
service doorway around the six doorstop fittings, which could result in
door deflection and loss of pressurization.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review this 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0572; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0572;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-027-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On October 19, 1998, we issued AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63
FR 57240, October 27, 1998), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-
100, -200, -200C, and -300 series airplanes. AD 98-22-10 requires
repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the aft frame and aft
frame support structure of the forward service doorway, and repair if
necessary. AD 98-22-10 resulted from reports of fatigue cracking of the
aft frame and frame support structure of the forward service doorway.
We issued AD 98-22-10 to prevent fatigue cracking of the aft frame and
frame support structure of the forward service doorway, which could
result in loss of the door, and consequent rapid decompression of the
fuselage.
    Tables 9 through 12 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014,
specify post-repair inspections, which may be used in support of
compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2)). However,
this NPRM does not propose to require those post-repair inspections.
This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

Actions Since AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27,
1998), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240,
October 27, 1998), we received reports of cracking in the forward
galley service doorway surround structure between body station (STA)
332.1 and STA 344, which are outside the inspection area of AD 98-22-
10, and we have received reports that cracking has been discovered on
airplanes outside the applicability of AD 98-22-10. We have determined
that additional inspections are needed, and that additional airplanes
are subject to the identified unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7,
dated July 7, 2014. For information on the procedures and compliance
times,

see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0572.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly state the
requirements of AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October
27, 1998), this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 98-
22-10. Those requirements are referenced in the service information
identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require additional
inspections and add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD
would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further
investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative
actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated
July 7, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on
how to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require
repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 419 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection......................  Up to 28 work-      None..............  Up to $2,380 per    Up to $997,220 per
                                   hours x $85 per                         inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                   hour = $2,380 per
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Estimated Costs for Optional Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair/preventive modification.......  12 to 17 work-hours x    $90 to $913............  Up to $2,358.
                                        $85 per hour = up to
                                        $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need this repair.

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 proposed 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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240, October 27, 1998), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0572; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-027-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 10,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR 57240,
October 27, 1998).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the aft
frame and frame support structure of the forward service doorway
around the six doorstop fittings; a determination that additional
inspections are needed; and that additional airplanes may be subject
to the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking of the aft frame and frame support
structure of the forward service doorway around the six doorstop
fittings, which could result in door deflection and loss of
pressurization.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable times specified in tables 1 through 6 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, except as required by
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do detailed inspections of the frame
web between body station (STA) 332.1 and STA 344, intercostal T-
brackets, intercostal T-chords, intercostals, and stringers, as
applicable; and do high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections
for cracking of door stop intercostal T-brackets, intercostal web,
door stop intercostal T-chords, intercostals, and stringers, as
applicable; and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision
7, dated July 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections at the
applicable times specified in tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108,
Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, until a terminating action specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD is done.

(h) Optional Terminating Action

    For Group 1, Configuration 1; Group 1, Configuration 2; Group 2;
Group 3; Group 4, Configuration 1; and Group 4, Configuration 2
airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108,
Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014: Accomplishment of a preventative
modification in accordance with Part 5 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014, terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Inspections and Corrective Actions for Group 5 Airplanes

    For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7, dated July 7, 2014: Within 120
days after the effective date of this AD, inspect and repair any
cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7,
dated July 7, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the issue
date of Revision 6 of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7,
dated July 7, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 6, dated January 9, 2014.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 98-22-10, Amendment 39-10858 (63 FR
57240, October 27, 1998), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (5) Accomplishment of the preventative modification in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1108, Revision 7,
dated July 7, 2014, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, is an
AMOC to the structural modification specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53A1108 that is required by paragraph A. of AD 90-06-
02, Amendment 39-6489, (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990).

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 15, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20204 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71541-71545]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-536-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Worcester
Resiliency Upgrade Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Worcester Resiliency Upgrade Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Eastern Shore
Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) in Worcester, Wicomico, and
Somerset Counties, Maryland and Sussex County, Delaware. The Commission
will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10, 2023. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on September 15, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-536-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in

court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge
in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently
grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain
authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain
cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Eastern Shore provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas, Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
536-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Eastern Shore proposes to install five liquified natural gas (LNG)
storage tanks and LNG vaporizers in Worcester County, Maryland,
approximately 1.1 miles of 10-inch-diameter pipeline looping in Sussex
County, Delaware and Wicomico County, Maryland, upgrades to an existing
pressure control station in Sussex County, Delaware, and upgrades to
three existing meter and regulating stations in Sussex County, Delaware
and Worcester and Somerset Counties, Maryland. The Worcester Resiliency
Upgrade Project would store approximately 475,000 gallons of LNG,
equivalent to 39,627 Dekatherms, and provide 14,000 Dekatherms per day
of corresponding peak firm natural gas transportation service.
According to Eastern Shore, its project would enhance the resiliency of
Eastern Shore's system.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 36.9
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Eastern shore would maintain about 16.1 acres
for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining
acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     socioeconomics;
     environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Community groups, schools, churches, and businesses within these
environmental justice communities, along with known environmental
justice organizations, have been included on the Commission's
environmental mailing list for the project, as further explained in the
Environmental Mailing List section of this notice.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued,

which will open up an additional comment period. Staff will then
prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission
staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment
period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before
issuing a final EIS. Any EA or draft and final EIS will be available in
electronic format in the public record through eLibrary \2\ and the
Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification
when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-536-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is 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. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: October 11, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix 1

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC23.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC23.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC23.013

[FR Doc. 2023-22886 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C