[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4396-4397]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The information collected is used by the FAA to
register aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust. The information
required to register and prove ownership of an aircraft is required
from any person wishing to register an aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara L Hall by email at:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to

enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0042.
    Title: Aircraft Registration.
    Form Numbers:
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Public Law 103-272 states that all aircraft must be
registered before they may be flown. It sets forth registration
eligibility requirements and provides for application for registration
as well as suspension and/or revocation of registration. The
information collected is used by the FAA to register an aircraft or
hold an aircraft in trust. The information requested is required to
register and prove ownership.
    Respondents: Approximately 146,757 registrants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 103,982 hours.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on January 24, 2018.
Barbara L. Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-01797 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


AIPORT DEICING CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

OW-2004-0038

DCN __AD00763____________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER

40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70871-70873]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68272; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Temporary
Suspension of Those Aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities and 36.21--
Equities That Would Not Permit Floor Brokers To Use Personal Portable
Phone Devices on the Trading Floor Following the Aftermath of Hurricane
Sandy Until the Earlier of When Phone Service Is Fully Restored or
Friday, December 14, 2012

November 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 November 19, 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 and II
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 extend the temporary suspension of those
aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities and 36.21--Equities that would not
permit Floor brokers to use personal portable phone devices on the
Trading Floor following the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy until the
earlier of when phone service is fully restored or Friday, December 14,
2012. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On Thursday, November 1, 2012, the Exchange filed a rule proposal
to temporarily suspend those aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities, 36.21--
Equities, and 36.30--Equities that would not permit Floor brokers and
Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') to use personal portable phone
devices on the Trading Floor \4\ following the aftermath of Hurricane
Sandy and during the period that phone service was not fully
functional.\5\ Pursuant to that filing, all other aspects of those
rules remained applicable and the temporary suspensions of Rule 36--
Equities requirements were in effect beginning the first day trading
resumed following Hurricane Sandy until Friday, November 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 6A, the Trading Floor is defined as the
restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange for the
trading of securities, but does not include the physical locations
where NYSE Amex Options are traded.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68138 (Nov. 1,
2012), 77 FR 66890 (Nov. 7, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 5, 2012, although power had been restored to the
downtown Manhattan vicinity, other services were not yet fully
operational. Among other things, the telephone services provided by
third-party carriers to the Exchange were still not fully operational
on the Trading Floor, which continued to impact the ability of Floor
members to communicate from the Trading Floor as permitted by Rule 36--
Equities. Accordingly, the Exchange filed to extend the temporary
suspension of those aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities, 36.21--Equities,
and 36.30--Equities that would not permit Floor brokers and DMMs to use
personal portable phone devices on the Trading Floor to the earlier of
phone service being restored or November 9, 2012,\6\ which was subject
to the same terms and conditions of the temporary suspension filed for
October 31, 2012 through November 2, 2012, including the record
retention requirements related to any use of personal portable
phones.\7\ On November 9, 2012, the Exchange filed an additional
extension of the temporary suspension of those aspects of Rules 36.20
and 36.21 that would not permit Floor brokers to use personal portable
phone devices on the Trading Floor to the earlier of phone service
being restored or November 16, 2012, again subject to the same terms
and conditions of the original temporary suspension that was filed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68162 (Nov. 5,
2012), 77 FR 67720 (Nov. 13, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-62).
    \7\ See supra note 5 (notice that describes the terms and
conditions of the temporary suspension).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68212 (Nov. 9, 2012)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2012-66). Because the telephone lines for the DMMs were
operational, the Exchange did not need to extend the temporary
suspension of Rule 36.30 as it related to DMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since filing the most recent extension, the Exchange has been
advised by its third-party carrier that the damage to the telephone
connections is more extensive than previously anticipated. In addition,
there has been damage to the internet connections available to Floor
brokers on the Trading Floor, which has adversely impacted service. In
particular, the Exchange notes that the lines that support both the
wired and wireless phone connections and internet connections for the
Floor brokers are based in an area of lower Manhattan that suffered
extensive damage as a result of Hurricane Sandy. The type of damage
that was sustained will, in some cases, require the third-party carrier
to rebuild the infrastructure that supports these services, rather than
engage in repairs of existing lines. As a result, the telephone line
and internet connections for Floor brokers still are not fully
operational and may not be so for at least another month, possibly more
given the type of work that needs to be completed to restore the
telephone services.
    Because of the ongoing intermittent phone and internet service,
many Exchange authorized and provided portable phones continue to not
be functional and therefore Floor brokers still cannot use the Exchange
authorized and provided portable phones, pursuant to Rules 36.20--
Equities and 36.21--Equities. In addition, many of the wired telephone
lines and internet connections for Floor brokers continue to not be
functional. In certain instances, however, the personal cell phones of
Floor brokers are operational on the Trading Floor. The Exchange
believes that because communications with customers is a vital part of
a Floor broker's role as agent and therefore contributes to maintaining
a fair and orderly market, during the period when phone and internet
service continues to be intermittent, Floor brokers should be permitted
to use personal portable phone devices in lieu of the non-operational
Exchange authorized and

provided portable phones, wired phone lines, or internet connections.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend the temporary
suspension of those aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities and 36.21--
Equities that would not permit Floor brokers to use personal portable
phone devices on the Trading Floor to the earlier of when phone service
is fully restored or Friday, December 14, 2012. Because phone service
to DMMs has been restored, the Exchange is not proposing to extend
further the temporary suspension of Rule 36.30--Equities, which
prohibits DMMs from using personal portable phones on the Trading
Floor.\9\ The Exchange proposes that the extension of the temporary
suspension of those aspects of Rules 36.20--Equities and 36.21--
Equities to permit use of the personal portable phones by Floor brokers
on the Trading Floor be pursuant to the same terms and conditions of
the temporary suspension filed for October 31, 2012 through November 2,
2012, including the record retention requirements related to any use of
personal portable phones.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Similarly, because the off-Floor locations for DMMs have
been restored, the Exchange does not need to extend further the
temporary suspension for DMMs to be permitted to communicate with
off-Floor personnel who may not be located at their regular physical
location. See supra notes 5 and 6 (notices describing the relief
requested for DMMs).
    \10\ See supra note 5 (notice that describes the terms and
conditions of the temporary suspension).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, as set forth in the prior filings, Floor brokers
that use a portable personal phone must provide the Exchange with the
names of all Floor-based personnel who used personal portable phones
during this temporary suspension period, together with the phone number
and applicable carrier for each number. Floor broker member
organizations must maintain in their books and records all cell phone
records that show both incoming and outgoing calls that were made
during the period that a personal portable phone was used on the
Trading Floor. To the extent the records are unavailable from the
third-party carrier, the Floor broker member organizations must
maintain contemporaneous records of all calls made or received on a
personal portable phone while on the Trading Floor. As with all member
organization records, such cell phone records must be provided to
Exchange regulatory staff, including without limitation staff of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), on request.
    In addition, to the extent that personal portable phones are used
to replicate internet connections to the extent previously approved
pursuant to Rule 36 that are not operational on the Trading Floor
because of damage sustained by Hurricane Sandy, such use is subject to
the same requirements that would otherwise be applicable, including
record-retention requirements. This emergency relief is solely meant to
maintain the status quo to the extent provided in Rule 36 and not
intended to broaden the scope of the activities allowed pursuant to the
Rule (e.g., accessing internet only at the booth). As with all member
organization records, such cell phone data records must be provided to
Exchange regulatory staff, including without limitation staff of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), on request. To the
extent that Exchange-approved telephone or electronic communications
are operational, Floor brokers must use those connections rather than
use a personal portable phone. Specifically, the Exchange states that
Floor brokers must return to pre-Hurricane Sandy communications at any
point when service is restored even if temporary.
    As noted above, because the Exchange is dependent on third-party
carriers for both wired and wireless phone service and internet
connections on the Trading Floor, the Exchange does not know how long
the proposed temporary suspension of Rules 36.20--Equities and 36.21--
Equities will be required. However, based on current estimates, the
Exchange understands that phone service may not be fully restored for
at least another month, possibly more.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that the extension of the
temporary suspensions of those aspects of Rule 36--Equities that do not
permit Floor brokers to use personal portable phones on the Trading
Floor continue until the earlier of when phone service is fully
restored or Friday, December 14, 2012.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange will provide notice of this rule filing to
Floor brokers, including the applicable recordkeeping and other
requirements. If telephone service is fully restored prior to
December 14, 2012, the Exchange will notify Floor brokers that the
temporary suspension of those aspects of Rule 36--Equities that do
not permit the use of personal portable phones on the Trading Floor
has expired as of the time that phone service is fully restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, while the
Exchange was able to open for trading, many of the services that the
Exchange depends on from third-party carriers, such as wired and
wireless telephone connections, are not fully restored. The Exchange
believes that the proposed extension of the temporary suspensions from
those aspects of Rule 36--Equities that restrict Floor broker's use of
personal portable phones on the Trading Floor removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national
market system because the proposed relief will enable Floor brokers to
conduct their regular business, notwithstanding the ongoing issues with
telephone service. The Exchange further believes that without the
requested relief, Floor brokers would be compromised in their ability
to conduct their regular course of business on the Trading Floor, which
could adversely impact the market generally and investor confidence
during this time of unprecedented weather disruptions. In particular,
for Floor brokers, because they operate as agents for customers, their
inability to communicate with customers could compromise their ability
to represent public orders on the Trading Floor.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes
that doing so will allow the Exchange to continue uninterrupted, for
Floor brokers, the emergency temporary relief necessitated by Hurricane
Sandy's disruption of telephone service, as described herein and in the
Exchange's prior filings seeking such relief, and help to maintain the
status quo, until the earlier of when phone service is fully restored
for Floor brokers, or Friday, December 14, 2012. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-69 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-69. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing 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 Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-69 and should
be submitted on or before December 18, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28684 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Statement in Support of EPA Considering Alaska as Part of a

Marine Emission Control Area

Purpose: “…describe the adverse health and environmental impacts
caused by OGV emissions to U.S. populations, terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems, critical habitats, water quality, and areas of cultural and
scientific significance. …”

“Our most pressing need is for information which highlights the
environmental effects nitrogen and sulfur deposition may have on
Alaska's sensitive ecosystems.  Specifically we are interested in any
information about the effects NOx, PM, and sulfur emissions have on
human health or regional haze/visibility.  Any other environmental
impacts associated with NOx, PM, or sulfur emissions would also be
helpful. ..

What would an Emission Control Area (ECA) mean?

Fuel Sulfur Limits (to address SOx and PM)

March 2010:  10,000 ppm in ECAs

2012:  Global cap falls to 35,000 ppm

2015:  ECA cap falls to 1,000 ppm

2020:  Global cap falls to 5,000 ppm - subject to a review in 2018; if
review indicates fuel will not be available, the date defaults to 2025

Position:  The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
encourages EPA to consider including Alaska’s coastline, including
Southeastern and South-central Alaska, the Aleutian Chain, the Northwest
and North Slope coasts, in the implementation of an Emission Control
Area (ECA).

Air quality values protected by a future ECA in Alaska include public
health, addressing the Regional Haze Rule and visibility concerns, plus
ecosystem integrity, resilience and protecting Alaska’s subsistence
based cultures.

Background:

Two of Alaska’s three major population centers (Anchorage and Juneau)
are coastal, with economies linked to fishing, marine commerce, and
tourism.  Alaska’s fishing industry and smaller population centers are
widely distributed along its coastline. With a warming climate and
changes in sea ice, the department anticipates increases in shipping
along the coasts of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea.  Air pollution from
marine traffic can affect human populations both culturally and
economically; acid rain and runoff can adversely impact subsistence and
commercial food resources.

Alaska Natives and rural Alaskans may have disproportionate exposure to
emissions from oceangoing vessels because of their heavy reliance on
subsistence foods and their proximity to marine traffic.  Alaska’s
Native children have higher rates of respiratory infections and other
lung ailments than other Alaskan children.  Both asthma and Respiratory
Syncytial Virus (RSV) are prevalent in Native, rural Alaskan children
and are of concern throughout rural Alaska. Though difficult to draw a
direct correlation between these health impacts and emissions from ocean
going vessels (OGVs), there are many communities located adjacent to the
shipping lanes in the Aleutians and in Southeast Alaska. Any effort to
reduce air quality emissions can potentially mitigate these health
concerns.

Impacts of Cruise Ship Sulfur Emissions in Alaska:

High sulfur emissions from cruise ships are visible as a blue haze that
hangs over Southeast Alaska towns frequented during the summertime.
Periodically, this haze impacts the aesthetic quality of life for
locals, and ironically diminishes the views of Southeast Alaska for
tourists.

ADEC estimated total sulfur oxide emissions from cruise ships during one
summer season using Juneau, Alaska as an example community. This
estimation did not include sulfur emissions from cruise ships underway,
only when in port, or “hotelling.”  From April 30 through September
27, 2008, there were 645 individual cruise ship visits to Juneau, or
nearly 4.3 visits a day on average.  When in port, cruise ships stayed
in Juneau’s harbor an average of 10.2 hours. Available data indicate
that one cruise ship can burn nearly 2 tons per hour of intermediate
fuel oil (IFO) 380, and nearly 0.5 tons per hour of marine diesel oil
(MDO) during hotelling. This equates to neatly 7,000 gallons of fuel
burned by one cruise ship in one hour. IFO 380 has a fuel sulfur content
of 2.5% or 25,000 parts per million (ppm); MDO has a fuel sulfur content
of 0.5% or 5,000 ppm. Based on these data, DEC estimated the total
sulfur oxide emissions from cruise ships hotelling in Juneau during one
summer season to be greater than 350 tons. These calculations suggest
that cruise ships are among the largest sources of sulfur oxide in
Alaska; aggregated sulfur oxide emissions in Juneau’s harbor are
larger than Cominco mine, large diesel electric utilities in remote
Alaska, and many of the North Slope oil and gas facilities.

Cruise ship traffic in southeast Alaska towns is on the rise, and
currently, there is no limit on the number of cruise ships that can
visit a port during any one day.  Currently, as many as six cruise ships
may visit Juneau per day, and Juneau is currently building additional
dock space to accommodate more cruise ships. These same cruise ships
then visit Skagway and Sitka on a daily basis.  On July 3rd, 2008, ADEC
staff witnessed a plume of visible cruise ship exhaust from nearly 3
nautical miles away as he approached  Skagway, Alaska (see Picture 1,
below).  As shown, this exhaust plume traversed the entire width of Lynn
Canal, the largest fjord in the world.

Picture 1. Approaching Skagway on the Alaska State Ferry, July 3, 2008.

The following pictures were taken July 24, 2008 from West Juneau, on
Douglas Island, looking towards Juneau.  Weather conditions were fairly
typical this day with moderate winds blowing from the southeast, and
some light rain.  When the weather is humid, which is typical in Juneau,
cruise ship haze is more visible.

Pictures 2-4. Cruise Ship exhaust over Juneau, with Mt. Roberts in the
background. Alaska July 24, 2008.As the pictures show, the plumes from
each cruise ship comingle into a visible plume over Alaska’s capitol
city.  There were three cruise ships in Juneau when these pictures were
taken; this is below average.  On days when there are four or five
cruise ships, and other vessels in port, the plume is much more visible.

The last time air quality monitoring occurred in downtown Juneau was
nearly 8 years ago. The monitoring did not find violations of federal
sulfur oxide standards. At that time, PM2.5 was not monitored.  If
resources are available, ADEC is considering reinstating ambient
monitoring in downtown Juneau during the summer of 2009 to determine
current levels of PM2.5 and sulfur oxides.  This would provide updated
information on ambient air impacts from cruise ship emissions in the
port.

The most practical solution to the high levels of sulfur being emitted
into local communities from cruise ships in port is lowering sulfur in
the fuel burned by the cruise ships as part of a sulfur emission control
area (SECA). Using the same calculations as above and capping the sulfur
at 1% per the ECA requirements in 2010 reduces the tons per season of
sulfur emissions to a little over 300 tons. The 2015 cap of 0.1% sulfur
reduces the season sulfur oxides emissions to nearly 35 tons per year.
This is an impressive reduction.

Regional Haze:

The visibility problems associated with high sulfur ship emissions
complicate Alaska’s ability to comply with the federal regional haze
rule. The regional haze rule establishes specific State Implementation
Plan (SIP) requirements and strategies for states to bring visibility in
designated Class I areas to natural conditions by 2064.  States must
develop long-term plans for reducing pollutant emissions that contribute
to visibility degradation and must establish interim goals aimed at
improving visibility in Class I areas. SIPs must address haze caused by
all sources of pollutants that impair visibility including haze caused
from smoke, vehicles, electric utility and industrial fuel burning, and
other activities that generate pollution.   Visibility in Alaska’s
Class I areas is impacted by uncontrollable sources of pollution, such
as wildfires, transport of pollutants from Europe and Asia, volcanic
activity, and sea salt deposition.  Fuel quality controls on mobile
sources, like marine shipping, are of paramount importance in addressing
regional haze impacts.

Simeonof National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Tuxedni NWR are coastal
Class I areas of special concern for how to achieve visibility goals.
The department believes that controlling emissions from ocean-going
vessels will be crucial to controlling regional haze in Alaska.
Shipping and other port emissions from along the Pacific Coast have been
shown to contribute significantly to atmospheric aerosol concentrations
over large areas of the western United States (Xu et al. 2006; Dominguez
et al. 2008)).  Based on IMPROVE air monitoring, existing shipping
routes and modeled emissions along the Alaskan coast, ADEC believes
aerosols impact visibility at Alaska’s Class I areas. Figures 1 and 2
demonstrate that with even a cursory examination of Corbett’s work
(Corbett et al. 2006, 2007), we see major shipping lanes pass by
Simeonof NWR, a Class I area for regional haze purposes.

Figure 1 (Corbett and Wang, 2006)

Figure 2 (Corbett et al. 2007)

Anthropogenic sources of sulfur in the atmosphere typically dominate at
higher latitudes, 35-50 deg N (8% natural) and 50-65 deg (10% natural)
(Bates et al, 1992). Nevertheless, we have examined natural sources of
atmospheric sulfur near the Regional Haze Class I monitoring sites.
Sulfate levels at Alaska IMPROVE sites are not correlated with volcanic
activity monitored by the Alaska Volcano Observatory, nor are they
correlated with sea salt which can sometimes be a significant source of
sulfur in coastal regions.  The sulfur dioxide from the Alaskan ports
emission inventory (Pechan, 2005) already exceeds that from the
permitted facilities in the Class I Area coastal counties. Ocean-going
shipping is not yet included in either inventory, but based on its
proximity to the Aleutian Archipelago, shipping will increase impacts
from the marine sector.

Evidence for elevated sulfate levels in pristine and remote areas of
Alaska

Simeonof Class I area is located near the tip of the Alaska Peninsula
facing the Pacific Ocean. The nearest community is Sand Point nearly 60
miles to the north and with a population of around 900 people.  Sand
Point is home to an IMPROVE monitoring site in one of the most remote
areas in the United States. IMPROVE monitoring sites exist because of
regional haze rule requirements and have specific data collection
objectives and standards for use an. As such, IMPROVE monitoring sites
are reliable and comparable across different regions of the country.

The Sand Point/Simeonof IMPROVE monitoring site should be detecting
levels of sulfate that are very low.  However, sulfate levels detectable
at Simeonof are comparable to sulfate at IMPROVE sites in Redwood and
Point Reyes in the Lower 48. Denali and Glacier National Park IMPROVE
sites demonstrate LOWER levels of sulfate. Hawaii Volcanoes seems to
have a baseline lower than Simeonof, but has frequent spikes to much
higher levels which is consistent with volcanic activity. Not too
surprisingly, East Coast Class I areas (Acadia and Shenandoah) are much
higher.

Why would Simeonof’s sulfate emissions be comparable to IMPROVE sites
much closer to major populations?  One potential explanation is volcanic
activity. The Aleutian Chain is home to many active volcanoes. The
signature of sulfate emissions from volcanic activity is episodic, with
steady levels interspersed with spikes of sulfate reflecting nearby
volcanic activity.  The levels seen at Simeonof, though indeed
influenced occasionally by nearby volcanoes, are consistently elevated
related to other Class I areas considering how remote the area is.
Sulfate levels at Simeonof do not vary seasonally. Another explanation
is the IMPROVE site’s proximity to the Great Northern Shipping Route,
a commonly used shipping lane for cargo ships sailing from North America
to Asia.  See figure #2 for context.

The regional haze rule has a number of requirements with which Alaska
must comply. States must develop long-term plans for reducing pollutant
emissions that contribute to visibility degradation and within the plans
establish goals aimed at improving visibility in Class I areas. The SIP
must address haze caused by all sources of pollutants that impair
visibility including haze caused from smoke, vehicles, electric utility
and industrial fuel burning, and other activities that generate
pollution. By 2064, visibility in Class I areas must reach background
levels. In the interim, goals of some percentage improvement in
visibility must be met. Of course, this presents a challenge in Alaska
which is already considered very close to “background”.

Yet reduction of sulfate provides Alaska its most reasonable chance of
meeting regional haze requirements.  Monitoring at Sand Point shows
sulfate is a significant fraction of the total haze causing pollutants.
The other contributing emissions are, for the most part, uncontrollable.
(See “A Quick Look at Simeonof Class I Area Visibility” in Appendix
A at the end of this document). The data indicates that controlling
sulfates is the best option for meeting the required “glidepath”
goals.

Boreal and Arctic ecosystems are susceptible to damage from marine
emissions with potential subsequent impact on subsistence food
resources:

Industrial and naturally occurring aerosols cause ecological damage to
boreal and arctic ecosystems. Many reports, although not all, come from
industrial regions subject to a wider range of pollutants than solely
NOx and SOx.  Documented damage to northern ecosystems includes forest
and tundra defoliation, physiologic stress responses, changes in growth
rates, changes in biogeochemical cycling and soil deposition, changes in
species composition and life cycles, and large-scale changes in remotely
sensed land cover (Oppenheimer, 1989; Kryuchkov, 1993; Freedman et al.,
1990; Alexeyev, 1995; Rees and Williams, 1997; Virtanen et al., 2002;
Tutubalina and Rees, 1999, 2001; Savard et al., 2002; Addison et al.,
1984; Savard et al.,2004).  The effects of sulfur dioxide and other
sulfur compounds on vegetation, food webs, and ecosystem health have
also been widely documented for most other biogeographic regions.

Three factors are of specific concern for Alaskan ecosystems:

Lichens are important components of boreal, subarctic, and arctic
ecosystems, by anchoring food webs and influencing plant succession:

Damage to lichen populations has widespread effects in Alaskan
ecosystems.   But, lichens are among the most sensitive organisms to
sulfur dioxide. Lichens are so sensitive they are frequently used as
biological indicators of sulfur pollution.  Examples, manuals, and
protocols for using lichens as bioindicators may be found at:

 HYPERLINK "http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/?page=reports"
http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/?page=reports  (USDA Forest Service) and
HYPERLINK "http://www.nhm.uio.no/botanisk/bot-mus/lav/sok_rll.htm"
http://www.nhm.uio.no/botanisk/bot-mus/lav/sok_rll.htm  (The
Bryologist).

A study conducted in areas within the Tongass National Forest in
Southeast Alaska found evidence of sulfur emission impacting lichen
communities. The study included specific efforts to determine patterns
of contaminant accumulation in lichens near downtown Juneau, on Mt.
Roberts (directly north of downtown Juneau), and at Greens Creek mining
facility on Admiralty Island (19 miles south of Juneau). Sulfur
exceeding Forest Service thresholds were found at all these sites, but
the Mt. Roberts results are particularly illuminating as the mountain
rises behind downtown Juneau and the docks where the cruise ships moor
(see pictures 2-4). Lichens from Mt. Roberts were above forest service
thresholds for sulfur at the 175, 600, and 910 foot levels (Dillman
2007). The authors conclude the main source of sulfur and nitrogen found
in lichens from Mt. Roberts is likely the burning of fossil fuels by
cruise ships and other vehicles and equipment in downtown Juneau.

Lichen biodiversity and abundance have been inventoried at multiple
sites along the Alaska coast, including Class I Areas for regional haze,
National Parks, and National Forest lands (Talbot et al., 1992, 2000,
2001, 2002). The inventoried sites contain a wide variety of lichens
from the entire range of sulfur sensitivity, from those most susceptible
to sulfur dioxide to those less susceptible. Given the results of the
Forest Service study cited above and sensitivity of the lichen species
known to be present, we expect sulfur oxides emissions from marine
vessels to be already impacting coastal plant communities.

Subsistence Resources:

Lichens are a particularly important food source for caribou, which in
turn are important to Alaskans as a subsistence food.

One issue of concern and current research is the potential role damage
to lichens may be having on the Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd.
This herd’s range adjoins the Alaska coast near a major ocean-going
shipping route.  The Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd has been
decreasing in size, exhibiting both poor calf survival and low pregnancy
rates which are typically a sign of dietary stress (ADF&G, 2008; Manning
and Butler, 2007; Valkenburg and Keech, 2002).  The herd is now being
managed by predator control and a complete hunting ban, including a ban
on subsistence. There are few, if any, remaining options for management
of this herd. One area of ongoing attention is the food base for this
herd, including lichen where available. If regulation of marine fuels
could potentially enhance lichen biomass in the area, it would
contribute in turn to maintenance of an important subsistence resource
for local human populations.

Subsistence hunting and plant gathering activities by Native and
non-Native Alaskans include use of a wide range of marine and land-based
resources along Alaska’s coasts.  Air pollution affects these
resources in several ways.  Contaminants accumulate in the foods
themselves, and air pollution damages and changes ecosystems, making
food resources less available (Shannon, 1999).

Ecosystem resilience:

Other areas of concern with marine shipping emissions are impacts on
ecosystems already stressed through climate change and potential for
acid rain in remote areas lacking current monitoring.

Climate change is serious in Alaska. Changes in temperatures, storm
activity, and sea ice stress Alaska Native and rural community abilities
to anticipate and adapt to changes in subsistence resources. How is it
affecting coastal ecosystems?  Alaskan ecosystems are already
disproportionately affected by climate change, with many indicators of
ecosystem stress present.  These indicators include melting permafrost,
declines in annual growth of dominant tree species, changes in shrub and
tree distributions, expanding pest outbreaks, increased methane efflux
from forests and wetlands.  Multiple stresses on ecosystems typically
act synergistically (Chapin et al. 2006, 2008; Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment, 2004; US Global Change Research Program, National Assessment
Synthesis Team.  2000).

Some Alaskan natural areas, such as Lake Clark National Park and
Preserve, have been identified as particularly susceptible to acid
deposition because of poor buffering capability of aquatic ecosystems.
Sources for airborne contamination in the Lake Clark region include
emissions from offshore oil/gas development in Cook Inlet, coal
extraction at the Beluga coal field, and international transport from
Asia and Europe (National Park Service, 2006). It may at some point be
possible to quantify how much sulfate from marine traffic is reaching
Alaska’s Class I areas and this national park (Dominguez et al.,
2008).

Participation in a marine ECA would diminish at least one of these many
stressors on Alaska’s ecosystems and would be one more protection for
maintaining Alaska’s ecosystems and the cultures that depend on them.

Bibliography

Addison, P.A., S. S. Malhotra and A. A. Khan. 1984. Effect of sulfur
dioxide on woody boreal forest species grown on native soils and
tailings.  J Environ Qual 13:333-336.

ADF&G. 2008. Predator Management for the Southern Alaska Peninsula
Caribou Herd. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife
Conservation.

Alexeyev, V.  1995. Impacts of air pollution on far north forest
vegetation. Science of the Total Environment 160/161:  605-617.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.  2004. Impacts of a warming arctic.
Cambridge University Press.  140 pp.   http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2006. Arctic Pollution:
Acidification and Arctic Haze. Oslo, Norway. 28 pp.

Bates, T.S.; B. K. Lamb, A. Guenther; J. Dignon; R. E. Stoiber.  1992.
Sulfur Emissions to the Atmosphere from Natural Sources. Journal of
Atmospheric Chemistry 14: 315-337. Bryologist: Recent Literature on
Lichens.  Series.
http://www.nhm.uio.no/botanisk/bot-mus/lav/sok_rll.htm

Chapin, Stuart F. III, A.L. Lovecraft, E.S. Zavaleta, J. Nelson, M.D.
Robards, G.P. Kofinas, S. F. Trainor, G.D. Peterson, H.P. Huntington,
and R.L. Naylor. 2006. Policy strategies to address sustainability of
Alaskan boreal forests in response to a directionally changing climate.
PNAS 103 (45): 16637–16643.

Chapin, Stuart F. III, S.F. Trainor, O. Huntington, A.L. Ovecraft, E.
Zavaleta, D.C. Natcher, A.D. Mcguire, J.L. Nelson, L. Ray, M. Calef, N.
Fresco, H. Huntington, T.S. Rupp, L. Dewilde, and R.L. Naylor. 2008.
Increasing Wildfire in Alaska’s Boreal Forest: Pathways to Potential
Solutions of a Wicked Problem. BioScience 58: 531-539

Corbett, James, W. Chengfeng. 2006. Estimation, Validation, and
Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories Forecast
Inventories for 2010 and 2020.  West Coast SECA Team Meeting, 11
December 2006; California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.

Corbett, James, J. Firestone, C. Wang. 2007. Estimation, Validation, And
Forecasts Of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories: Final
Report. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the
California Environmental Protection Agency and for the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation of North America. 5 April 2007: ARB Contract
Number 04-346; CEC Contract Number 113.11.

Dillman, Karen L, L.H. Geiser and G. Brenner. “Air Quality
Biomonitoring with Lichens: The Tongass National Forest”. 2007. USFS
Tongass National Forest. unpublished report

Dominguez, Gerardo, T. Jackson, L. Brothers, B. Barnett, B. Nguyen, and
M.H. Thiemens.  2008. Discovery and measurement of an isotopically
distinct source of sulfate in Earth’s atmosphere.  PNAS _ September 2,
2008 _ vol. 105 _ no. 35 _ 12769–12773.

Freedman, B., V. Zobens, T.C. Hutchinson, W.I. Gizyn. 1990. Intense,
natural pollution affects Arctic tundra vegetation at the Smoking Hills,
Canada.  Ecology 71 (2): 492-503.

Kryuchkov, Vasiliy V. 1993. Extreme Anthropogenic Loads and the Northern
Ecosystem Condition.  Ecological Applications 3 (4): 622-630.

Manning, Elizabeth, and L. Butler. 2007. Caribou in Trouble On Alaska
Peninsula. Alaska Fish and Wildlife News, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game,
August 2007.

National Park Service.  2006. Ecological Profile of Lake Clark National
Park & Preserve in Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, Southwest Alaska
Network, Appendix 2, 152-157

Oppenheimer, M. 1989. Climate change and environmental pollution:
physiological and biological interactions. Climatic Change 15
(1–2):255–270.

Pechan, E.H. & Associates. 2005. Commercial marine inventories for
select Alaskan ports: final report. Prepared for Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.  June, 2005.

Rees W. G. and M. Williams 1997. Monitoring changes in land cover
induced by atmospheric pollution in the Kola Peninsula, Russia, using
Landsat-MSS data.  International Journal of Remote Sensing 18 (8):
1703-1723.

Savard M, C. Bégin, M. Parent. 2002, Are industrial SO2 emissions
reducing CO2 uptake by the boreal forest? Geology 30 (5):403-406.

Savard MM, C. Bégin, M. Parent, A. Smirnoff, J. Marion. 2004. Effects
of smelter sulfur dioxide emissions: a spatiotemporal perspective using
carbon isotopes in tree rings. J Environ Qual. 33(1):13-26.

Shannon Mala Bard, 1999. Global Transport of Anthropogenic Contaminants
and the Consequences for the Arctic Marine Ecosystem. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 38: 356-379.

Talbot, S.S., S.L Talbot, J.W. Thomson, W.B. Schofield. 2000. Lichens of
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Westernmost Alaska Peninsula. The
Bryologist 103(2): 379–389.

Talbot, S.S., S.L.Talbot, J.W. Thomson, F.J. Daniels, W.B. Schofield.
2002.  Lichens from Simeonof Wilderness, Shumagin Islands, Southwestern
Alaska. The Bryologist 105(1): 111.

Talbot, S.S., S.L Talbot, J.W. Thomson, W.B. Schofield. 2001.  Lichens
from St. Matthew and St. Paul Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska. The
Bryologist 104(1): 47.

Talbot, Stephen S., S. L. Talbot, and J.W. Thomson. 1992. Lichens of
Tuxedni Wilderness Area, Alaska.  The Bryologist 95(1): 20-30.

US Global Change Research Program, National Assessment Synthesis Team.
2000. Climate Change Impacts on the United States, The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Overview:  Alaska.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewalaska.h
tm

Valkenburg, Patrick, and M. Keech. 2002. Population dynamics of Interior
and southwest Alaska caribou herds, 1 July 2001-30 June 2002. Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game, Federal aid in wildlife restoration research
performance report, grant W-27-5, project 3.45. Juneau, Alaska.

Virtanen, Tarmo, K. Mikkola, E. Patova, A. Nikula. 2002. Satellite image
analysis of human caused changes in the tundra vegetation around the
city of Vorkuta, north-European Russia.  Environmental Pollution 120
(3): 647-658.

Toutoubalina, O.V., and W.G. Rees. 1999.  Remote sensing of industrial
impact on Arctic vegetation around Noril’sk, Northern Siberia:
preliminary results. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20:
2979-2990.

Tutubalina, O. V., and W.G. Rees. 2001. Vegetation degradation in a
permafrost region as seen from space: Noril’sk, 1961-1999.  Cold
Regions Science and Technology 32, 191-203.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/?page=reports
National Lichens & Air Quality Database and Clearinghouse: Lichen
Monitoring in US National Forests and Parks Reports, Publications and
Other Resources.  See:  Alaska Region; Pacific Northwest Region.

Jin Xu, D. DuBois, M. Pitchford, M. Green and V. Etyemezian. 2006.
Attribution of sulfate aerosols in Federal Class I areas of the western
United States based on trajectory regression analysis.  Atmospheric
Environment 40(19): 3433-3447.

Appendix A:

A quick look at Simeonof Class I Area Visibility:

The regulatory requirement under the Regional Haze Rule is to improve
visibility on the worst days from 18.56 deciviews (dv) to 15.7 dv by
2064.  This is not a huge amount, but the control options are few.

How does sulfate affect visibility at Simeonoff?  This plot of light
extinction due to sulfate (Y-axis) against date (X-axis) shows that best
days (B) and worst days (W) have very different amounts of sulfate.

4.  If we take out the emission sources that we can’t control (sea
salt, organic carbon associated with wildfires, coarse mass (on a
coastal island, think silt), we get the plot below.  Of the controllable
aerosols, sulfate (in yellow) is the most important.  Controlling
sulfate is probably the best way, perhaps the only way, to improve
visibility at Simeonof.

Image and data sources:

Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS), Annual summary
tools: Composition
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev/web/AnnualSummarydev/Composition.asp
x

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Air
Monitoring Data.   http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/data.htm

[File\pathname]

[File\pathname]

Skagway is located in this  fjord.

Simeonof


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14321-14322]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC21-38-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Second Amendment to December 31, 2020 Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Imperial
Valley Solar 2, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: EC21-65-000.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc., Eagle Creek Racine
Hydro, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of AEP Generation Resources Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 3/5/21.
    Accession Number: 20210305-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-102-000.
    Applicants: BigBeau Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of BigBeau Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210304-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-103-000.
    Applicants: Valley Center ESS, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Valley Center ESS, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2224-011; ER20-2603-002.
    Applicants: Pegasus Wind, LLC, Skeleton Creek Wind, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 29, 2021 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Pegasus Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/5/21.
    Accession Number: 20210305-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2705-002.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to be effective
8/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2706-002.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to be effective
8/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-708-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement and Correction: Original
ISA, SA No. 5621; Queue No. AF1-195 to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/5/21.
    Accession Number: 20210305-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1289-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-08_SA 2797 ATC-Lake
Mills Light and Water 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1290-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-08_SA 2767 ATC-
Manitowoc Public Utilities 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1291-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-08_SA 2796 ATC-City
of Kaukauna 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1292-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd submits revisions to
Att. H-13 re: Magid Glove & Safety Mfg. Co. to be effective 3/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1293-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: NSTAR; Order No. 864 Supplementing
Compliance Filings in ER20-2572 & ER21-1130 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1294-000.
    Applicants: SunZia Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Application for Revision of Negotiated Rate Authority,
et al. of SunZia Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1295-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service Company
(as agent).
    Description: Compliance filing: Eversource; Order No. 864
Supplemental Compliance Filing-ER20-2572 and ER21-1130 to be effective
1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1296-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-08_SA 2795 ATC-City
of Hartford 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1297-000.
    Applicants: BigBeau Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial Market-Based Rate
Petition of BigBeau Solar to be effective 5/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1298-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Annual Formula
Rate of PEB and PBOP Changes to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1299-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado Electric, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: WECC Soft Offer Cap to be effective
N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210308-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 8, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05250 Filed 3-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2932-2935]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28059; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-13-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all RR RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-
61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-
17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines. That
NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD that requires inspecting the
intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor shaft rear balance land for
cracks, which could lead to engine failure. This action revises that
NPRM by changing the optional terminating action for RB211-Trent 700
and RB211-Trent 800 engines to mandatory terminating action. Since
these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the
NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 20,
2012.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418 or email from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781)
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2007-
28059; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-13-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

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to RR RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-
61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-
17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines. That
NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2011 (76 FR
64283). That NPRM proposed to require for certain RB211-Trent 700 and
RB211-Trent 800 engines, on-wing initial and repetitive borescope
inspections and when in the shop, repetitive eddy current inspections
(ECIs) for cracks on the rear balance land; and continued for RB211-
Trent 500 engines, initial and repetitive in-shop visual inspections or
ECIs for cracks on the rear balance land. That NPRM also proposed
certain optional terminating actions.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued that NPRM, RR has ceased efforts to develop an on-
wing ECI. Therefore the optional terminating action for RB211-Trent 700
and RB211-Trent 800 engines only, should be made mandatory. EASA has
also superseded EASA AD 2010-0266R1, dated January 6, 2011, with EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0221, dated November 14, 2011 to
accomplish the same corrective actions as proposed herein.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM.
The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request

    US Airways requested that we allow borescope inspection using RR
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211-72-AG270 when at shop visit, if
the exposure of the IP compressor is not visible for ECI. The commenter
stated that airlines will incur more maintenance costs if not allowed
to do borescope inspections under this circumstance.
    We do not agree. The visual/ECI is not required unless the rear
face of the IP compressor is exposed. Our Definition paragraph defined
a shop visit as the introduction of an engine into a shop, and
disassembly sufficient to expose the IP compressor module rear face. We
did not change the NPRM.

Request

    The Boeing Airplane Company, Rolls-Royce plc, and American Airlines
requested that we correct two service bulletin reference errors and two
paragraph reference errors in the compliance section. We agree. We
revised this NPRM by changing the Service Bulletin (SB) and paragraph
reference errors, specifically changing ``RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402,
Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011'' to ``RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG402,
Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011'', changing ``RR SB No. RB.211-72-G401,
Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011'' to ``RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG401,
Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011'', changing the reference in paragraph
(k)(2)(i) from ``(h)'' to ``(g)(1)(i)'', and by changing paragraph
``(f)(3)'' to paragraph ``(g)''.

Request

    Rolls-Royce plc requested that, when referencing the RB211-Trent
800 service information, we make the inspection requirements consistent
with the RB211-Trent 700 inspection requirements, as they are the same
except for the compliance interval.
    We agree. We changed paragraph (g)(1)(i) in this NPRM to state to
use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011,
sections 3.A.(2)(b) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through
3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through
3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.

Request

    Rolls-Royce plc requested that we reference EASA AD 2011-0221,
dated November 14, 2011, in the NPRM since it supersedes EASA AD 2010-
0266R1, dated January 6, 2011.
    We agree and changed the EASA AD reference.

Request

    Rolls-Royce plc requested that we change the compliance time from
``next shop visit'', to ``next shop visit or within 90 months after the
effective date of the AD'' to be consistent with EASA's AD.
    We do not agree. The fretting caused by movement between the
balance weights and the IPC rear face is related to engine run time,
not calendar time. Shop visits are also related to average run time. We
did not change the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these
same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of
the original NPRM. As a result, we have determined to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require:
     For the RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines, on
wing initial and repetitive borescope inspections and when in the shop,
repetitive ECIs and visual inspections for cracks on the rear balance
land; and
     For the RB211-Trent 500 engines, initial and repetitive
in-shop visual inspections or ECIs for cracks on the rear balance land.
     For the RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines,
adding a mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspection
requirements.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 136 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 3.5 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed on-wing/
in-shop visual inspections, about 2.5 work-hours per engine to perform
the proposed in-shop ECIs, and about 8 work-hours to rebalance the IP
compressor. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S.
operators to be $470,696.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2008-18-08, Amendment 39-15665 (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008),
and adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2007-28059; Directorate Identifier
2007-NE-13-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 20, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2008-18-08, Amendment 39-15665, (73 FR
52201, September 9, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 553-61,
553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61,
768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17,
892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    We are superseding AD 2008-18-08 because additional cracks on
RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 intermediate-pressure (IP)
compressor rotor shafts have been found since that AD was issued.
This cracking could lead to IP compressor rotor shaft failure,
uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) RB211-Trent 700 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

(1) On-Wing Inspections

    (i) Within 625 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date
of this AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear
balance land. Use RR Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211-72-
AG270, Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(a) through
3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through
3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
    (ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 625 cycles-
since-last inspection (CSLI). You may count CSLI from the last
borescope inspection or the last eddy current inspection, whichever
has occurred last.

(2) In-Shop Inspections

    At each shop visit, eddy current inspect (ECI) and visually
inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land, and
visually inspect the balance weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-
AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.A. through
3.D.(3)(b)(v), except paragraphs 3.D.(3)(a)(ii) and 3.D.(3)(b)(iii)
to do the inspections.

(g) RB211-Trent 800 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

(1) On-Wing Inspections

    (i) Within 475 CIS after the effective date of this AD,
borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land.
Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011,
sections 3.A.(2)(b) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through
3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through
3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
    (ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 475 CSLI.
You may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last
eddy current inspection, whichever has occurred last.

(2) In-Shop Inspections

    At each shop visit, ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor
rotor rear shaft balance land, and visually inspect the balance
weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7,
2011, sections 3.A. through 3.D.(3)(b)(v), except paragraphs
3.D.(3)(a)(ii) and 3.D.(3)(b)(iii), to do the inspections.

(h) RB211-Trent 500 Series Engines--In-Shop Rear Balance Land
Inspections

    At each shop visit, ECI the IP compressor rotor shaft and
visually inspect the balance weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-
AF260, Revision 5, dated July 7, 2011 sections 3.A. through
3.B.(3)(a)(iii) to do the visual inspection, or RR Service Bulletin
(SB) No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011 section
3.D.(1) through 3.D.(14) to do the ECI.

(i) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a shop visit is defined as
introduction of an engine into a shop, and disassembly sufficient to
expose the IP compressor module rear face.

(j) Mandatory Terminating Action for RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent
800 Engines

    (1) As mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive
inspections in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at the next shop visit
in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried
out on the IPC, modify RB211-Trent 700 engines by removing the
existing IPC balance weights, and then rebalancing the IPC as
specified in paragraphs 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(6)(e) and 3.B.(6)(g) of
RR ASB No. RB.211--72-AG402, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011.
    (2) As mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive
inspections in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, at the next shop visit
in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried
out on the IPC, modify RB211-Trent 800 engines by removing the
existing IPC balance weights, and then rebalancing the IPC as
specified in paragraphs 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(6)(e) and 3.B.(6)(g) of
RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG401, Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011.

(k) Previous Credit

    (1) For RB211-Trent 700 series engines:
    (i) An on-wing inspection done before the effective date of this
AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG270, Revision 1, dated December 14,
2009, or Revision 2, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 3, dated
February 25, 2011, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) An in-shop inspection done before the effective date of
this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1, dated

September 27, 2010, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD.
    (iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the effective date of this
AD using RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402, Revision 1, dated January 11,
2011, meets the rebalancing requirement in paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD.
    (2) For RB211-Trent 800 series engines:
    (i) An on-wing inspection done before the effective date of this
AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 3, dated December 21,
2010, or Revision 4, dated February 25, 2011, meets the inspection
requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) An in-shop inspection done before the effective date of
this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1, dated
September 27, 2010, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD.
    (iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the effective date of this
AD using RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402, Revision 1, dated January 11,
2011, meets the rebalancing requirement in paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD.
    (3) For RB211-Trent 500 series engines:
    (i) An in-shop visual inspection done before the effective date
of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AF260, Revision 4, dated July
28, 2009, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph (h) of this
AD.
    (ii) An in-shop ECI done before the effective date of this AD
using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2, dated December 23,
2010, meets the ECI requirement in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to request an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (781)
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2011-0221, dated November
14, 2011, also pertains to the subject of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
245418; or email from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 11, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-1128 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P