[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 41602-41605]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0575; Product Identifier 2019-NM-113-AD; Amendment
39-19690; AD 2019-14-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting an airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. This AD
requires a maintenance records check to determine if any main slat
track assembly has been removed, an inspection of the main slat track
assemblies for a suspect lot number or a lot number that cannot be
determined, and applicable on-condition actions. This AD was prompted
by a report that certain main slat track assemblies were manufactured
incorrectly and are affected by hydrogen embrittlement. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 30, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 30,
2019.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by September 30, 2019.

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 AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0575.

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-2019-
0575; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Rutar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA has received a report from Boeing indicating that 148 main
slat track assemblies from a set of lot numbers were manufactured
incorrectly and are affected by hydrogen embrittlement. Main slat track
assemblies that are affected by hydrogen embrittlement have reduced
strength. After reviewing information within the report provided from
Boeing, the FAA determined on May 22, 2019, that this condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of main slat track assemblies, which
could cause the slat to depart and potentially strike the airplane,
resulting in injury to airplane occupants and/or preventing continued
safe flight and landing.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    The FAA issued AD 2019-11-03, Amendment 39-19649 (84 FR 26743, June
10, 2019) (``AD 2019-11-03''), for certain The Boeing Company Model
737-700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes. The FAA issued AD 2019-11-
03 to address main slat track assemblies that have reduced strength due
to hydrogen embrittlement. This condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of main slat track assemblies, which could cause the
slat to depart and potentially strike the airplane, resulting in injury
to airplane occupants and/or preventing continued safe flight and
landing.
    In the preamble of the final rule issuing AD 2019-11-03, the FAA
stated that the identified unsafe condition also exists on Boeing Model
737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. The FAA also stated that Boeing was
developing service information that would address the unsafe condition
for these airplanes and that the FAA might consider additional
rulemaking once that service information was developed, approved, and
available. Boeing has since developed such service information and the
FAA has determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB,
dated June 24, 2019. This service information describes procedures for
a maintenance records check to determine if any main slat track
assembly has been removed, an inspection of the main slat track
assemblies for a suspect lot number or a lot number that cannot be
determined, sending the inspection results to Boeing, and applicable
on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing main slat
track assemblies having a suspect lot number, or having a lot number
that cannot be determined, with serviceable main slat track assemblies;
shipping main slat track assemblies with suspect lot numbers or with
lot numbers that cannot be determined to Boeing; and contacting Boeing
to report if any main slat track assembly has been removed. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency 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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated June 24, 2019,
described previously, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    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-2019-0575.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to
make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good
cause.
    The discrepant parts are ``rotable'' in that they could be removed
from the 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes that are the subject of this AD, and
installed on 737 Next Gen (Boeing Model 737-600/-700/-800/-900)
airplanes. The current shortage of nondiscrepant parts makes this
removal and reinstallation more likely to happen. Also, these parts are
not serialized, and have been marked in a manner that has proven to be
impermanent. Thus, if a discrepant part were to be removed from a 737-8
or 737-9 airplane and installed on a 737 Next Gen airplane before all
of the discrepant parts have been identified, it could expose the
entire 737 Next Gen fleet to the unsafe condition, and likely require
fleetwide inspections to find the discrepant parts.
    The FAA therefore considers the prompt identification and removal
of these parts from 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes to be an urgent safety
issue. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views,
or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-
0575 and Product Identifier 2019-NM-113-AD at the beginning of your
comments. The FAA specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final
rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments the agency receives, without change,
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact the agency receives about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance records check..........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0             $85          $2,805
                                      = $85.
Inspection.........................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour               0             255           8,415
                                      = $255.
Reporting..........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour                0              85           2,805
                                      = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these on-condition actions:

                                      Estimated Costs of On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                       Labor cost              Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement and shipping.........  Up to 54 work-hours x $85  Up to $82,680.......  Up to $87,270.
                                    per hour = Up to $4,590.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all available
known costs in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.
    The FAA is 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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-14-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19690; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0575; Product Identifier 2019-NM-113-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 30, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated June 24, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that certain main slat track
assemblies were manufactured incorrectly and are affected by
hydrogen embrittlement. The FAA is issuing this AD to address main
slat track assemblies that have reduced strength due to hydrogen
embrittlement. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of main slat track assemblies, which could cause the slat to
depart and potentially strike the airplane, resulting in injury to
airplane occupants and/or preventing continued safe flight and
landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated June 24, 2019, do
all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-27A1311 RB, dated June 24, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1311, dated June 24, 2019, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated June 24, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB,
dated June 24, 2019, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
requirements bulletin 737-27A1311 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated
June 24, 2019, specifies to report inspection results to Boeing
within a certain compliance time. For this AD, the compliance time
to report inspection results is at the applicable time

specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 3 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 3 days after the effective date of
this AD.
    (3) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated
June 24, 2019, specifies to ship affected parts to Boeing within a
certain compliance time if, during the inspection, it has been
determined that any main slat track assembly has a suspect lot
number or has a lot number that cannot be determined. For this AD,
the compliance time for shipping affected parts to Boeing is at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of
this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Ship the affected part to Boeing within 30 days after
removing the affected part.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Ship the affected part to Boeing within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (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, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Greg Rutar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1311 RB, dated
June 24, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 23, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17508 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 118 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36851-36855]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471; FRL-10010-36-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS26

Granting Petitions To Add 1-bromopropane (Also Known as 1-BP) to
the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting
petitions to add n-propyl bromide (nPB) (Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) No. 106-94-5) to the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is taking final action to
grant these petitions based on the petitioners having met the
requirements contained in CAA section 112(b)(3), which allows any
person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to the list of
HAP. The term 1-bromopropane (1-BP), which is used throughout this
document, is the common name for nPB. This is the first occasion on
which the EPA is granting petitions to add a substance to the list of
HAP that Congress created in 1990. Following this action, the EPA will
take a separate regulatory action to add 1-BP to the list of HAP under
CAA section 112(b)(1).

DATES: The petitions are granted as of June 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this document under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information 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 electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce
the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. There is a temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA,
and no hand deliveries are currently accepted. For further information
and updates on EPA Docket Center services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. John Schaefer, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Policies and Strategies Group (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919)-541-4991; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in
this document. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the
reading of this document and for reference purposes, the EPA defines
the following terms and acronyms here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane (also known as n-propyl bromide (nPB))
CAA Clean Air Act
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HSIA Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
ICL Israel Chemicals Ltd.
MOA mode of action
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTP National Toxicology Program
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PERC perchloroethylene
TRI Toxics Release Inventory

    Organization of this document. The information in this document is
organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
    B. CAA Authority: Petitions to Modify the List of HAP
    C. Petitions Submitted to the EPA
II. What comments were received on the draft document to grant the
petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list?
    A. Comments Regarding Estimated 1-BP Emissions
    B. Comments on 1-BP Cancer Risk Factors
    C. Comments Requesting the Addition of 1-BP to the CAA Section
112(b)(1) HAP List
III. The EPA's Decision to Grant the Petitions
IV. Reducing Emissions from Sources of 1-BP
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

I. Background

A. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?

    The docket number for this final action is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0471. In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this document will also be available on the
internet. The EPA will post a copy of this final action at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html following official Agency
signature. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will
post the Federal Register version and key technical documents on this
same website.

B. CAA Authority: Petitions To Modify the List of HAP

    The CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) specifies that any person may petition
the Administrator to modify the list of HAP contained in CAA section
112(b)(1) by adding or deleting a substance. CAA section 112(b)(3)(B)
sets out the substantive criteria for granting a petition. It calls for
the Administrator to add a substance to the CAA section 112(b)(1) list,
otherwise known as the HAP list, ``upon a showing by the petitioner or
on the Administrator's own determination that the substance is an air
pollutant and that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation
or deposition of the substance are known to cause or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse
environmental effects.'' The Administrator is required under the CAA
section 112(b)(3)(A) to either grant or deny a petition within 18
months of the receipt of a complete petition by publishing a written
explanation of the reasons for the Administrator's decision. The
Administrator may not deny a petition based solely on inadequate
resources or time for review.
    Finally, under the CAA section 112(e)(4), the Administrator's
decision to add a pollutant to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list is
not a final Agency action subject to judicial review, except that any
such action may be reviewed when the Administrator promulgates emission
standards for the pollutant. Accordingly, this decision to grant
petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list is not subject to judicial review
until the Administrator promulgates applicable the CAA section 112(d)
standards addressing emissions of 1-BP. Under the CAA section 112(d)
the EPA has a ``clear statutory obligation to set emissions standards
for each listed HAP.'' National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625,
634 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Additionally, under CAA section 112(c)(5), the
EPA is required to promulgate emission standards under the CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) within two years of adding a new source category to
the CAA section 112(c)(1) source category list.
    This is the first occasion on which the EPA is granting a petition
to add a substance to the list of HAP that Congress created in 1990.
Since 1990, the EPA has amended the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list by
removing four listed HAPs. They are caprolactam (61 FR 30816 (June 18,
1996)); ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (69 FR 69320 (August 2, 2000));
surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (these are
compounds that were considered to be included in glycol ethers, which
is a listed HAP; (65 FR 47342 (August 2, 2000)); and methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) (70 FR 75047 (December 19, 2005)). For more information,
see https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications#mods. The EPA has also denied a petition to remove
methanol from the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list. 66 FR 21929 (May 2,
2001).

C. Petitions Submitted to the EPA

    Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted petitions
to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list on October 28, 2010,
and November 24, 2011, respectively. Both HSIA and NYSDEC petitions
referred to the chemical as nPB and 1-BP. In an action published on
November 23, 2015, the EPA added the chemical by the name 1-BP to the
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements.
In addition, the chemical is listed in the EPA's Substance Registry
Services, the EPA's authoritative resource for basic information about
chemicals, as 1-BP. Finally, the chemical is currently undergoing an
EPA Toxic Substances Control Act risk evaluation, under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0084 as 1-BP. Therefore, for this action and for
future regulations under the CAA, the EPA will refer to the chemical
identified by CAS No. 106-94-5 as 1-bromopropane or 1-BP.
    On November 28, 2012, in response to the EPA's requests for
additional data, HSIA supplemented its petition. Following the receipt
of the petitions, the EPA conducted a review to determine whether the
petitions were complete according to Agency criteria for the CAA
section 112(b) actions, which we explained in the February 6, 2015,
document (80 FR 6676). Specifically, after reviewing these petitions
and supplemental information, the EPA determined that the petitions
addressed all the necessary subject areas for the Agency to assess
whether emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, or
deposition of 1-BP are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated
to cause adverse human health effects or adverse environmental effects.
The EPA determined these petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list to be
complete and published a notification of receipt of a complete petition
in the Federal Register on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6676), and invited
the public to comment on the technical merits of these petitions and to
submit any information relevant to the technical review of the
petitions. On March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12794), the EPA agreed to extend
the comment period for the notification of receipt of complete
petitions to May 7, 2015.
    On January 9, 2017, the EPA published a draft document in the
Federal Register containing the Agency's intended rationale for
granting the petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP
list (82 FR 2354). In the draft document, the EPA determined that these
petitions met criteria specified in the CAA section 112(b): i.e., 1-BP
is an air pollutant and its emissions and ambient concentrations ``may
reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health.''
Subsequently, on June 6, 2017, the EPA published an action granting the
request by Albemarle Corporation, a U.S.-based manufacturer of 1-BP, to
extend the comment period until October 1, 2017, to provide an
opportunity for prospective commenters to review the 2017 Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), which included newly required emission
reporting of 1-BP (82 FR 26091). This current action is the final step
in granting the petitioners' request to add 1-BP to the CAA section
112(b)(1) HAP list. Even following the granting of this petition to add
1-BP to the list, sources will remain under no regulatory or statutory
obligation to reduce emissions of 1-BP until a separate regulatory
action is taken. In section IV of this document, we explain the future
additional regulatory actions that the EPA intends to consider either
simultaneously with the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1)
HAP list or soon thereafter.

II. What comments were received on the draft document to grant the
petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list?

    The EPA received 12 comments on the draft document to add 1-BP to
the CAA section 112(b)(1) list of HAP. Two commenters opposed adding 1-
BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list, while 10 commenters supported
the action. All comments are in the docket for this action. A summary
of the major comments and our responses are presented in this section.

A. Comments Regarding Estimated

1-BP Emissions

    Comment: Albemarle Corporation requested that the EPA extend the
comment period to October 1, 2017, to ensure that data from the TRI
database for 1-BP would inform the final document. Albemarle
Corporation stated the extension would provide the public with an
opportunity to review the TRI dataset for 1-BP usage, sources, and
emissions and also to use those data to prepare meaningful comments on
the draft document.
    Response: The EPA also agreed that it would be useful to review
reported TRI emissions releases for 1-BP prior to finalizing the
document. Since January 2017, when the draft document was published,
two years of emissions data had been submitted to the EPA's TRI.
Specifically, one commenter provided TRI data for 1-BP for calendar
year 2016 during the extended comment period. Further, according to the
EPA's TRI, in 2016, 55 facilities (in 27 states) reported emissions
totaling 626,659 pounds (more than 313 tons) of 1-BP into the air, with
multiple sources reporting emissions in excess of 20,000 pounds (10
tons per year). Total 1-BP air emissions reported to TRI in 2017 were
746,562 pounds (more than 373 tons).
    Finally, the emissions data provided supported the risk analysis
submitted by HSIA. The primary risk driver for the analysis was a
degreasing operation in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, where the maximum
individual lifetime risk was estimated at 38-in-1 million. The
emissions reported by the facility to the TRI database showed
approximately 70 tons per year of 1-BP emissions, which supports the
petitioner's emissions estimates and the assertion that 1-BP may
present a risk to human health.
    Comment: Albemarle Corporation also commented that the emission
estimates used by petitioners to estimate the fenceline ambient
concentration of 1-BP lacked accuracy and were ``wholly inadequate to
support the petition.'' They requested an extension of the comment
period to October 1, 2017, in order to resolve the significant
differences between the estimates provided by the petitioner, HSIA, and
the commenter's estimated emissions.
    Response: The EPA agreed that resolving any differences between the
commenter's emission estimates and the petitioner's estimates was an
important issue that needed to be resolved prior to deciding on the
petitions. Therefore, the EPA extended the comment period until October
1, 2017 (82 FR 26091, June 6, 2017). The commenter, however, did not
provide additional information during the comment period extension. The
EPA evaluated HSIA's emission estimates and modeling assumptions and
found them to be reasonable and found their risk assessment methodology
consistent with the best practices for estimating carcinogenic risk for
an air pathway analysis. Given that no evidence was provided to change
the EPA's previous review of the petitioner's risk assessment, the
petitioner's original emission estimates used for the air pathway risk
modeling were found to be acceptable and to provide the basis for a
reasonable analysis of the risks associated with inhalation of 1-BP.

B. Comments on 1-BP Cancer Risk Factors

    Comment: Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL) requested that the EPA
reconsider its initial decision to add 1-BP to the HAP list. ICL made
this request based on a September 2016 study titled In Vivo Mutation
Assay of n-Propyl Bromide at the cII Locus in Big Blue[supreg]
Transgenic B6C3F1 Mice Exposed via Whole-Body Inhalation.\1\ Based on
this study, ICL argued for removing cancer as a potential hazard from
1-BP exposure, which, in their view, would eliminate the basis for
listing 1-BP as a HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0471-0067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA rejects the premise that the results of a single
assay for mutagenicity in a single gene locus in a transgenic (Big
Blue[supreg]) mouse strain can be used to make general statements on
potential mutagenicity or carcinogenicity. The EPA finds adequate
support from submitted evidence and comments that 1-BP presents a
potential cancer hazard and, therefore, is granting these petitions to
list 1-BP as a HAP for purposes of regulatory actions based on the
following considerations:
    First, not all carcinogens operate via a mutagenic mode of action
(MOA). In fact, many of the National Toxicology Program (NTP)
substances categorized as ``Known to be a human carcinogen'' are
carcinogenic via non-mutagenic mechanisms. There is mixed evidence of
mutations in bacterial and mammalian cells and limited data on DNA
damage in 1-BP-exposed workers. However, there is clear evidence for
the carcinogenicity of 1-BP in multiple tissues in two rodent species
from a 2-year cancer bioassay \2\ by the NTP. The NTP's Report on
Carcinogens, 14th Edition \3\ finds 1-BP is ``reasonably anticipated to
be a human carcinogen'' based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity
from studies in experimental animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/status/agents/ts-m000017.html.
    \3\ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/bromopropane.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, regarding the ICL claim that if 1-BP is not a mutagen, any
cancer potential will be a threshold effect. The 2005 EPA Cancer
Guidelines \4\ provide the latitude to apply a non-linear model when
data positively establish the MOA to be non-linear. However, it is not
automatically assumed that a non-linear MOA is operational if a
chemical is not a mutagen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as explained in greater detail in the draft document, there
is significant evidence that 1-BP poses a negative health impact for
noncancer effects including reproductive toxicity and neurotoxicity in
both controlled and uncontrolled environments; the evidence for these
noncancer effects provides sufficient justification to list 1-BP as a
HAP, regardless of the potential for a cancer effect (82 FR 2354, 2360-
61, January 9, 2017).
    Finally, as also explained in the draft document, the EPA
``interpret[s] the CAA section 112(b)(3)(B) as invoking the
Administrator's expertise in considering information/data that
addresses the potential or likelihood of harm rather than concrete
proof of actual harm,'' and that the Administrator is authorized to
``act in the face of uncertainty as to the proven health effects of a
substance'' and to ``draw inferences from the data'' before him. (82 FR
2357, January 9, 2017); see generally Id. at 2356-58, 2361-62.

C. Comments Requesting the Addition of 1-BP to the CAA Section
112(b)(1) HAP List

    Comment: Ten commenters supported the EPA's initial decision to
grant petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list and
encouraged the EPA to issue a final action granting the petitions. They
also

stated that petitioners had provided substantial evidence to support
the conclusion that 1-BP either is known to cause or can reasonably be
anticipated to cause cancer and noncancer health effects in humans.
Their comments generally discussed this evidence.
    One commenter stated that the decision to list 1-BP as a HAP under
the CAA depends only on showing potential adverse effects from a
chemical, not whether exposure is at levels that cause those effects.
The commenter also noted that exposures of concern for 1-BP are already
occurring. The commenter likewise disagreed with the negative
mutagenesis assay findings submitted by ICL, stating that results of a
single assay for mutagenicity cannot be used to apply across-the-board
statements on potential mutagenicity.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges commenters' statements. The EPA also
agrees with the comments on the availability of substantial evidence to
support the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list.

III. The EPA's Decision To Grant the Petitions

    Consistent with the draft document, petitioners have provided
sufficient information demonstrating the adverse health effects of 1-BP
that supports the EPA's determination that 1-BP is an air pollutant as
defined under the CAA section 302(g) and that ``emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse
effects to human health or adverse environmental effects'' as specified
under CAA section 112(b)(3)(B). The documented known or anticipated
adverse health effects of 1-BP, which are based on established sound
scientific principles, include carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity,
and neurotoxicity. The EPA also concludes that petitioners' assessments
regarding estimates of potential ambient concentrations of 1-BP that
are likely to result at a facility's fenceline, process emissions
related information, and chemical usage information that are
representative of normal operating conditions are reasonable. The EPA
is, therefore, granting petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section
112(b)(1) list of HAP. This action concludes the petition process under
the CAA section 112(b)(3). As previously explained, the EPA's granting
of the petitions by itself, as accomplished by this document, does not
impose any regulatory or statutory obligations on sources of 1-BP
emissions. Following this action, the EPA will take a separate
regulatory action to add 1-BP to the list of HAP under the CAA section
112(b)(1). At that time, the EPA will publish a Federal Register
document that formally proposes the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section
112(b)(1) HAP list and assess the impacts of adding 1-BP to the HAP
list on potentially affected sources.

IV. Reducing Emissions From Sources of 1-BP

    The first step in this process is to grant the petitions requesting
that 1-BP be listed as a HAP, which we are completing with this action.
As a general matter, granting a petition to add an air pollutant to the
CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list initiates the process of bringing the
air pollutant into consideration in the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) program, under the CAA section
112(d). (The CAA section 112(d) imposes a ``clear statutory obligation
to set emissions standards for each listed HAP.'' National Lime
Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). As previously
explained, by itself, granting the petitions will not create new
regulatory or statutory obligations for sources that emit 1-BP, until
further actions are taken by the Agency. During the period from when
this document is published and until the next step of adding 1-BP to
the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list is taken, sources emitting 1-BP will
have no regulatory obligations related to approval of the petitions.
    The second step is to publish a Federal Register document that
formally announces the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1)
HAP list. In granting the petitions to list 1-BP as a HAP, the EPA has
learned that most source categories emitting 1-BP will not become
subject to emission standards until the EPA amends or promulgates new
maximum achievable control technology standards for specific source
categories. The single largest user of 1-BP is the Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning source category. However, the current Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart T) does not regulate 1-BP
emissions because only emissions of methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene (PERC), and trichloroethylene (TCE) are subject to
the rule. Therefore, the use of 1-BP as a solvent degreaser will not be
subject to regulation until such time as the EPA revises 40 CFR part
63, subpart T, issues new standards, or takes other actions to reduce
1-BP emissions from the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning source category.
    Further, the EPA may need to take additional regulatory action to
address 1-BP emissions from certain dry cleaning operations. The PERC
Dry Cleaning source category, which sets out requirements for these
operations, covers only PERC emissions. PERC is a solvent used in dry
cleaning and has been identified as a probable human carcinogen. 40 CFR
63.322(o)(5)(i) requires that the existing co-residential dry cleaning
subcategory phase out the use of PERC by December 21, 2020. The EPA has
learned that 1-BP is currently used as a replacement solvent in this
subcategory. Considering the public health effects discussed earlier in
this document and the information before us, the EPA is concerned about
the use of 1-BP as a substitute for PERC in the co-residential dry
cleaning subcategory. Further, these public health effects may call for
the need for adequate controls for 1-BP emissions from other dry
cleaning subcategories other than the dry cleaning co-residential
subcategory. The EPA is, therefore, planning in a future action to
modify the CAA section 112(c)(1) source category list to add a new
source category that would cover 1-BP emissions from all dry cleaning
operations. Under the CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA may add additional
source categories to the CAA section 112(c)(1) source category list.
    Beyond the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning source category and 1-BP
dry cleaning operations, the EPA does not believe that other source
categories need to be added to the source category list or otherwise
modified to reduce emissions of 1-BP. After adding a new source
category to regulate 1-BP emissions from dry cleaning operations, the
EPA would be required under CAA section 112(c)(5), to promulgate
emission standards under the CAA section 112(d) within two years.
    Additionally, some sources could become immediately subject to
existing standards once 1-BP is placed on the CAA section 112(b)(1)
list given that these sources may become major sources of HAP emissions
(greater than 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of
total HAP). For these sources, 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5) allows three years to
comply after 1-BP is added to the HAP list unless the underlying rule
specifies another schedule.
    These future actions that the EPA intends to consider for purposes
of addressing 1-BP emissions reduction, such as the listing of new
source categories under the CAA section 112(c)(1), can occur either
simultaneously with listing 1-BP on the HAP list or shortly thereafter.
In sum, as a result of granting these petitions, the EPA intends to
consider taking additional regulatory actions as a result

of adding 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Additional information about this Executive Order can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it
raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-13145 Filed 6-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45200-45201]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-506-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest
Deadline

    Take notice that on June 29, 2023, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed a prior notice request for authorization, in accordance
with 18 CFR 157.205, 157.208, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas
Act and National Fuel's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-
4-000, to abandon two injection/withdrawal storage wells, EC-463 and
State Line 7405, and the associated well lines ECW463 and NSLW7405, in
its Beech Hill Storage Field (Beech Hill) located in Allegany County,
New York. National Fuel states the abandonment is required due to
localized corrosion on the production strings of EC-463 and State Line
7405 wells. National Fuel states that the cost of the abandonment
project will be $731,000, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Meghan Emes, Senior Attorney, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at (716) 857-
7004, or by email at [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec.  157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

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

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is September 5, 2023. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is September 5, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before September 5, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-506-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-506-000.

To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Meghan Emes,
Senior Attorney, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main
Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at [email protected].
    Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the
applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

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

    Dated: July 7, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14896 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43433-43436]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19584]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81569; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2017-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

September 11, 2017.
    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 1, 2017, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NYSE American'') 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 modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective September 1, 2017. The proposed 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule, effective
September 1, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the
American Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program to modify various
credits offered and to establish certain credits provided depending on
the type of Electronic transactions (e.g., whether it is a simple or
complex execution). The Exchange also proposes to add ``Simple Order''
to the glossary of defined terms in the Fee Schedule.
    Section I.E. of the Fee Schedule describes the Exchange's ACE
Program. The ACE Program features a base tier and five higher tiers
expressed as a percentage of TCADV \4\ and provides two alternative
methods by which Order Flow Providers (each an ``OFP'') may receive per
contract credits for Electronic Customer volume that the OFP, as agent,
submits to the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange proposes to modify the
qualifications for certain of the tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E., available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. See also Fee Schedule, Key
Terms and Definitions (defining TCADV as ``Total Industry Customer
equity and ETF option average daily volume. TCADV includes OCC
calculated Customer volume of all types, including Complex Order
transactions and QCC transactions, in equity and ETF options'').
    \5\ The volume thresholds are based on an OFP's Customer volume
transacted Electronically as a percentage of total industry Customer
equity and ETF options volumes as reported by the Options Clearing
Corporation (the ``OCC''). See OCC Monthly Statistics Reports,
available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, an OFP that achieves 0.75% or less of Customer
Electronic ADV (``CADV'') as a percent of TCADV falls within the Base
Tier and is not eligible to receive ACE Credits. To qualify for Tier 1
or 2, an OFP may achieve a level of CADV that is equal to or greater
than certain percentages of the OFP's October 2015 volume
(collectively, the ``Step Up'' qualifications):
     For Tier 1, an OFP qualifies by achieving CADV that
exceeds October 2015 volume by at least 0.20% to be eligible for a
$0.14 per contract credit;
     For Tier 2, the OFP may qualify by achieving CADV that
exceeds October 2015 volume by at least 0.35% to be eligible for a
$0.18 per contract credit.\6\ An OFP that achieves Tier 2 is also
eligible to receive a more favorable $0.19 per contract credit on
Electronic Customer Complex Orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As an alternative to the Step Up qualification basis, an OFP
may qualify for Tier 2 (and receive the same $0.18 per contract
credit) by achieving greater than 0.75 CADV.
    \7\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.E., n. 1 (providing that the
credit for Customer Complex Orders is provided regardless of whether
the Complex Order trades against interest in the Complex Order Book
or with individual orders and quotes in the Consolidated Book).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Step Up qualifications and to
instead provide that OFPs may qualify for ACE credits based solely on
percentages of monthly TCADV. The Exchange believes this proposed
change would provide the opportunity to all Exchange participants to
meet the same reasonable, yet meaningful standard to qualify for the
ACE Program credits. Thus, as proposed, an OFP that achieves monthly
CADV of at least 0.40% would qualify for Tier 1; and an OFP that
achieves monthly CADV of greater than 0.75% would qualify for Tier
2.\8\ Consistent with the change, the Exchange proposes to modify the
Fee Schedule to reflect that an OFP that achieves monthly CADV of less
than 0.40% falls within the Base Tier and, as is the case today, would
therefore be ineligible for ACE credits.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.E.
    \9\ The Enhanced Credits are only available to those OFPs who
have an Affiliated NYSE American Options Market Making firm or an
Appointed MM that has committed to the 1 Year Prepayment Program,
Balance of the Year Program, or the 3 Year Prepayment Program,
respectively, as described in Section I.D. See Fee Schedule, Section
I.E.

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

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the credits for various Tiers
and to set forth separate credits based on transaction type. Currently,
the ACE program provides various credits, applied on a per contract
basis, on all Customer Electronic executions in Standard Options; the
ACE program also offers more favorable credit for electronic Customer
Complex Orders to OFPs that achieve Tiers 2, 4 or 5.\10\ An OFP may be
eligible for enhanced ACE credits based on the Exchange's Prepayment
Programs (the ``Enhanced Credits'').\11\ The Exchange proposes to
modify the ACE Program to reflect differing credits based on the
execution of Simple Orders--sometimes referred to by the Exchange as
single-leg orders--and to establish ACE credits at each of the five
tiers for execution of Complex Orders. In this regard, the Exchange
proposes to define a ``Simple Order,'' as ``any order to purchase or
sell contracts in a single listed option series'' and to make clear
that ``[a] Simple Order is sometimes referred to in NYSE American Rules
as a single-leg order (e.g., Rules 928NY and 980NY).'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 7 (regarding more favorable $0.19 credit
available for OFPs that achieve Tier 2); see also Fee Schedule,
Section I.E., n. 2 (regarding more favorable $0.25 per contract
credit available for OFPs that achieve Tier 4 or 5, provided the OFP
executes more than 0.50% of TCADV in Initiating CUBE Orders in a
calendar month).
    \11\ See supra note 9.
    \12\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Key Terms and Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an OFP that qualifies for Tier 1 would receive a
credit of $0.12 per contract on executions of Customer Simple Orders,
or, if eligible, an Enhanced Credit of $0.13 per contract. An OFP that
qualifies for Tier 1 would receive a credit of $0.19 per contract for
executions of Complex Orders,\13\ or, if eligible, an Enhanced Credit
of $0.20 or $0.21 per contract, respectively, depending on whether the
OFP is a participant in the 1- or 3-Year Prepayment Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted herein (see supra note 7), under Tier 2, the
Exchange currently offers a credit of $0.19 per contract for
executions of Customer Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an OFP that qualifies for Tier 2 would receive a
credit of $0.14 per contract on executions of Customer Simple Orders,
or, if eligible, an Enhanced Credit of $0.15 or $0.16 per contract,
respectively, depending on whether a participant in the 1- or 3-Year
Prepayment Program. The Exchange proposes to offer an OFP that
qualifies for Tier 2 the same credits for executions of Complex Orders
as is offered to OFPs that achieve Tier 1 (i.e., $0.19 per contract or,
if eligible, an Enhanced Credit of $0.20 or $0.21 per contract,
respectively, depending on whether the OFP is a participant in the 1-
or 3-Year Prepayment Program).
    For clarity purposes, the Exchange is proposing to specify ACE
credits for Complex Order executions available to an OFP that achieve
Tiers 3, 4, or 5, which credits are equivalent to ACE credits currently
available to an OFP that achieve these Tiers.
    Consistent with the foregoing proposal to differentiate ACE credits
for executions in Simple Orders and Complex Orders, the Exchange
proposes to modify notes 1 and 2 to Section I.E. (referred to simply as
``note 1'' and ``note 2''). Regarding note 1, the Exchange proposes to
remove language made superfluous by these changes (i.e., to delete
reference to the $0.19 credit for certain Complex Orders) and to make
clear that ``[t]he credit for Customer Complex Order executions will be
provided regardless of whether the Complex Order trades against
interest in the Complex Order Book or with individual orders and quotes
in the Consolidated Book.'' \14\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to
delete the reference to note 1 that appears solely in Tier 2 and to
instead add reference to note 1 in each column of the table setting
forth the proposed ACE credit for ``Complex'' executions.\15\ To
further streamline the Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to merge
information from note 2 into proposed note 1 (resulting in the deletion
of note 2).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.E., n. 1.
    \15\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.E.
    \16\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.E., n. 1 (making clear
that the potential $0.25 credit available to OFPs that achieve Tiers
4 or 5 (described supra at note 10) is an alternative more favorable
credit to the proposed (base) credits for such OFPs, which range
from $0.19-$0.24). OFPs that are eligible for more than one credit
will always receive the more favorable credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing a modification to the calculation of
an OFP's Electronic volume. The Exchange would no longer provide
overweighting in the calculation for Customer orders that take
liquidity. The Exchange believes that eliminating the overweighting of
such orders, coupled with the proposed modifications to the ACE credits
offered, should incent OFPs to send a variety of different orders to
NYSE American Options, including Complex Orders to rest in the Complex
Order Book.
    The proposed modifications to the ACE Program are designed to
further encourage market participants to direct order flow to the
Exchange in an effort to achieve the modified (more achievable)
qualification thresholds as well as to encourage OFPs to direct Complex
Order flow to the Exchange in an effort to qualify for the proposed
(more favorable) rebates. To the extent this purposes [sic] is
achieved, all Exchange participants would benefit from any additional
volume and liquidity through increased opportunities to trade as well
as enhancing price discovery.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\18\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the ACE
Program are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they would enhance the incentives to OFPs to transact Customer
orders on the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those
market participants that do not participate in the ACE Program.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to the ACE
Program are consistent with the Act because they may attract greater
volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would benefit all market
participants by providing tighter quoting and better prices, all of
which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national
market system.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal to eliminate
Step Up qualifications (for Tiers 1 and 2) would provide the
opportunity to all Exchange participants to meet the same reasonable,
yet meaningful standard to qualify for the ACE Program credits. The
Exchange believes that the proposed modified qualification thresholds
to achieve Tier 1 or 2 are reasonably offset by the slightly reduced
credits for an OFP's Simple Order executions. The Exchange believes
Tiers 1 and 2, as modified, would encourage market participants to
direct order flow (especially Simple Orders) to the Exchange in an
effort to achieve the

modified (more achievable) qualification thresholds. Further, the
proposal to set forth ACE credits for Complex Orders would encourage
OFPs that transact Customer Complex Orders to direct this order flow to
the Exchange in an effort to qualify for the proposed (more favorable)
rebates. The Exchange believes that all Exchange participants would
benefit from the any [sic] additional volume and liquidity (resulting
from the proposed changes) through increased opportunities to trade as
well as enhancing price discovery. To the extent this goal is achieved,
the Exchange would improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen
its market quality for all market participants. The Exchange notes that
other exchanges similarly offer credits for executions of Complex
Orders and such credits are therefore not new or novel.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See MIAX Options fee schedule, Section 1.a.ii. (Priority
Customer Rebate Program), available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_08072017.pdf (offering per contracts
credits ranging from $0.21-$0.25 for complex orders). See also The
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') fee schedule, Volume
Incentive Program, at p. 3, available here, http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf (offering per contracts
credits ranging from $0.20-$0.25 for complex orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to define ``Simple Orders,'' in the Fee Schedule is
likewise reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it would add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule to the
benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to eliminate the
overweighting in the calculation for Customer orders that take
liquidity is likewise reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because eliminating the overweighting of such orders,
coupled with the proposed modifications to the ACE credits offered,
should incent OFPs to send a variety of different orders to NYSE
American Options, including Complex Orders to rest in the Complex Order
Book.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed amendments
to the ACE Program are pro-competitive as the changes should encourage
OFPs to direct Customer order flow--including Complex Orders--to the
Exchange and any resulting increase in volume and liquidity to the
Exchange would benefit all Exchange participants through increased
opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, this proposal would enhance the
quality of the Exchange's markets and increase the volume of contracts
traded here. In turn, all the Exchange's market participants would
benefit from the improved market liquidity. If the proposed changes
make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become ATP
Holders. The Exchange notes that other exchanges similarly offer
credits for executions of Complex Orders and such credits are not new
or novel and would allow the Exchange to better compete with other
options exchanges.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \21\ See supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-13. 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-
NYSEAMER-2017-13, and should be submitted on or before October 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19584 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23699-23700]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0269]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG EXPORTER,
Washburn & Doughty Hull 122

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative
compliance.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that the U.S. Coast Guard First
District Prevention Department has issued a certificate of alternative
compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the TUG EXPORTER, Washburn & Doughty
Hull 122. We are issuing this notice because its publication is
required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the
vessel's side lights, TUG EXPORTER cannot fully comply with the light,
shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering
with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of
issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance promotes the Coast
Guard's marine safety mission.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on 8 May,
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information or questions about
this notice call or email Mr. Kevin Miller, First District Towing
Vessel/Barge Safety Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (617) 223-
8272, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States is signatory to the
International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The
special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to
comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72
COLREGS. Under statutory law and Coast Guard regulations, specified 72
COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special
construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel
cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with
the special function of the vessel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or
purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which
the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that
compliance with alternative requirements is justified,\2\ and the Chief
of the Prevention Division would then issue the applicant a certificate
of alternative compliance (COAC) if he or she determines that the
vessel cannot comply fully with 72 COLREGS light, shape, and sound
signal provisions without interference with the vessel's special
function.\3\ If the Coast Guard issues a COAC, it must publish notice
of this action in the Federal Register.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 33 CFR 81.5.
    \3\ 33 CFR 81.9.
    \4\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The First District Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard,
certifies that the TUG EXPORTER, Washburn & Doughty Hull 122 is a
vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to
the position of the vessels side light, it is not possible to comply
fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72
COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction,
or design of the vessel. The First District Prevention Department
further finds and certifies that the vessel's sidelights (13' 5'' from
the vessel's side mounted on the pilot house) and the vessel's stern
light and towing lights (3' 6'' aft of frame 20) are in the closet
possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72
COLREGS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 33 U.S.C. 1605(a); 33 CFR 81.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
Byron L. Black,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Prevention Division, First Coast
Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-10890 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P