[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30868-30870]
[DOCID:fr29my08-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0290]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Gulf of Mexico--Johns Pass, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of Johns Pass, Florida while construction operations are
being conducted. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the
workers and mariners on the navigable waters of the United States. No
person or vessel may anchor, moor, or transit the Regulated Area
without permission of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg, Florida.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0290 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call BM1 Charles Voss at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, (813)
228-2191 Ext 8307. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0290), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0092)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays; or the Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention
Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33606-3598 between 7:30
a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Flatiron Construction will be performing construction work on the
new Johns Pass Bridge. This work will involve setting girders,
installing a new fendering system, setting the deck, setting overhangs,
placing resteel, pouring the bridge deck, and wrecking the old bridge's
deck on the Johns Pass old bridge. These operations will require the
closure of the navigable channel. The closures will only be for limited
times, during nighttime hours, and scheduled to accommodate the local
marine traffic. The nature of the operation and environment surrounding
the Johns Pass Bridge presents a danger to the workers and mariners
transiting the area. This proposed safety zone is being established to
ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed safety zone encompasses the following waters of the
Gulf of Mexico, Florida: all waters from surface to bottom, within a
100-yard radius of the following coordinates: 27[deg]46'58'' N,
082[deg]46'57'' W. Vessels are

prohibited from anchoring, mooring, or transiting within this zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative.
    The proposed safety zone will be effective until the completion of
the bridge project tentatively scheduled for July 2010. However, the
safety zone will only be enforced for a limited time on days when
construction operations that require the channel to be closed are
actually occurring. The Coast Guard does not know the exact dates of
the construction operations at this time. Most of the operations are
tide and weather restricted. However, every attempt will be made to
conduct the operations at early morning hours to reduce the impact to
mariners. At no time will the zone be enforced on a Saturday or Sunday
and the closures will in no way exceed any continuous 18 hour period.
Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg will give notice of the enforcement
of the safety zone by publishing it in the Local Notice to Mariners and
by issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 24 to 48 hours prior to the
start of enforcement. On-Scene notice will be provided by Coast Guard
or other local law enforcement maritime units enforcing the safety zone
as designated representatives of Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    The rule will only be enforced during a time when vessel traffic is
expected to be minimal. Moreover, vessels may still enter the safety
zone with the express permission of the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit Johns Pass, FL. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: This rule will be enforced for a limited
time when marine traffic is expected to be minimal; additionally
traffic will be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the
Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated
representative.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, we
believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure
2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public
Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0290 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-290  Safety Zone; Gulf of Mexico, Florida.

    (a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary
safety zone on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, in the
vicinity of the John's Pass Bridge, that includes all the waters from
surface to bottom, within a 100-yard radius of the following
coordinates: 27[deg]46'58'' N, 082[deg]46'57'' W. All coordinates
referenced use datum: NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
    Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) St.
Petersburg, Florida, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas
and safety and security zones.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may anchor, moor or
transit the Regulated Area without the prior permission of the Captain
of the Port St. Petersburg, Florida, or a designated representative.
    (d) Dates. This rule is effective until the bridge construction is
completed tentatively scheduled for July 2010.
    (e) Enforcement. This regulated area will only be enforced while
construction operations are taking place. The Coast Guard does not know
the exact dates of the construction operations at this time; however
Sector St. Petersburg will announce each enforcement period by
publishing the restriction in the local notice to mariners and issuing
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 24 to 48 hours prior to the start of
enforcement. Additionally, on-scene notice will be provided by Coast
Guard or other local law enforcement maritime units enforcing the
safety zone.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, St. Petersburg,
Florida.
[FR Doc. E8-11866 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10022-10025]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03034]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0573, FRL-10018-79-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act requires each state to make a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission to establish that its SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the revised NAAQS. This
type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP
submission. The EPA is approving the State of Washington's September
30, 2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as meeting specific
infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide and 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0573. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background Information

    On May 26, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve Washington's September
30, 2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as meeting certain
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 2015 ozone NAAQS (85 FR 31421). The
initial public comment period for this proposed action ended on June
25, 2020. Due to an administrative error, the EPA omitted the technical
support document (TSD) relevant to the proposed action from the docket
during the initial comment period, open from May 26, 2020 to June 25,
2020. The EPA corrected the administrative error and on September 3,
2020, we provided an additional 30 days for public comment on the
proposed action (85 FR 54960). The public comment period ended on
October 5, 2020. The EPA received adverse comments on the proposal.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received two adverse comments during the initial comment
period related to our administrative docket error that left out the TSD
relevant to the proposed action. The EPA addressed these comments by
including the TSD document in the docket and providing an additional
30-day comment period. The EPA received one additional comment,
unrelated to our administrative docket error, during the initial
comment period. We have summarized and responded to the adverse comment
below. The full text of the submitted comment may be found in the
docket for this action.

Comment--Adequate Resources

    Summary--An anonymous commenter stated that, in its proposed
approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), the EPA failed to evaluate
adequate funding and resources necessary to carry out the functions
delegated to the state and required by the state to carry out the
functions of the SIP. The commenter asserted that the EPA must audit
Washington's finances and accounting to make an affirmative
determination as to whether the state has the necessary funding and
resources. The anonymous commenter also stated that the EPA should
affirmatively determine whether Washington actually has the necessary
personnel to carry out and operate programs required under the SIP in
light of recent COVID-19 concerns.
    Response--CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to
provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law necessary to carry
out the SIP during the five years following the SIP submission.\1\ CAA
section 110 does not mandate a specific methodology for the EPA to
evaluate the adequacy of resources to implement the SIP. See 76 FR
42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's
assertion that an audit of the state's finances and accounting
practices is required in order to satisfy the requirements of
110(a)(2)(E)(i). The EPA's role in evaluating a SIP submission is to
assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural
requirements in order to meet the requirements of a new or revised
NAAQS. The EPA's role in approving an infrastructure SIP submission is
to determine whether the submission addresses the necessary
requirements of the Act, not to evaluate the way in which a SIP is
being implemented. See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d
971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA guidance identifies a five-year period following the SIP
submission as the relevant timeframe for this evaluation. See
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1
through 10, September 13, 2013, at page 40 (2013 guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed action, we identified Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 70.94 \2\ as providing the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) Director authority to hire personnel to carry out duties of
the department, in coordination with local clean air agencies and the
Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (funded and authorized
separately under RCW 80.50). According to the Washington Department of
Ecology Budget and Program Overview 2019-2021, Ecology has an operating
budget of $43.7 million to perform its air program functions ($10.1
million from federal funds, with the remainder from state funds and
other permit and fee programs). Specifically, Washington receives CAA
sections 103 and 105 grant funds from the EPA and provides state
matching funds necessary to carry out SIP requirements. As part of our
September 3, 2020 reopening of the public comment period, we
supplemented the docket with the general CAA section 105 program grant
supporting materials for informational purposes, including our most
recent review of performance metrics under the grant at the time.\3\
The EPA expects that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacts on state
revenues and could theoretically impact a state's ability to adequately
implement its SIP. However, the impacts of the pandemic on Washington's
personnel and resources available to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E) in the future is speculative at best. Based on
assurances in the state's submission and the analysis conducted as part
of the EPA's grant programs, we have a reasonable basis to conclude
that Washington has satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Recently re-codified to RCW 70A.15, with no substantive
changes to the statute.
    \3\ The EPA subsequently updated our review of performance
metrics under the CAA section 105 grant program for Federal Fiscal
Year 2020, which is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that Washington has provided the necessary assurances
of adequate sources of personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to implement its SIP for purposes of the 2010 SO2 and
2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's 2013 guidance. Therefore,
it is appropriate to finalize the proposed finding that Washington's
SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Washington's September 30, 2019 and April 3,
2020, infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting specific infrastructure
requirements of the CAA. We find that the Washington SIP meets the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010
SO2 and 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) (except for those
provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (D)(i)(II) (except for those
provisions covered by the PSD and regional haze FIPs), (D)(ii) (except
for those provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(except for those provisions covered by the PSD FIP), (K), (L), and
(M).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated July 15, 2019.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470, Table 2 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements--Sulfur Dioxide
Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards'' immediately below the entry
``Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or      submittal     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(2) Infrastructure           Statewide...........  9/30/19 and  2/18/2021, [Insert    This action
 Requirements--Sulfur Dioxide                                4/03/20   Federal Register      addresses the
 Standards and 2015 Ozone                                              citation].            following CAA
 Standards.                                                                                section 110(a)(2)
                                                                                elements: (A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-03034 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 79429-79431]
[DOCID:fr20de10-975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63539; File No. SR-BX-2010-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter IV of the BOX Rules To
Allow Executing Participants To Provide BOX a List of the Order Flow
Providers for Which the Executing Participants Will Provide Directed
Order Services

December 14, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 3, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 5 (Obligations
of Market Makers) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group,
LLC (``BOX'') to allow Executing Participants (``EP'') \3\ to provide
BOX a list of the Order Flow Providers (``OFP'') for which the EP will
provide Directed Order services. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/, on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings prescribed within the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Under the BOX's Directed Order process, Market Makers on BOX are
able to handle orders on an agency basis directed to them by OFPs. An
OFP sends a Directed Order to BOX with a designation of the Market
Maker to whom the order is to be directed. BOX then routes the Directed
Order to the appropriate Market Maker. Under Chapter VI, Section
5(c)(ii) of the BOX Rules, a Market Maker only has two choices when he
receives a Directed Order: (1) Submit the order to the PIP process; or
(2) send the order back to BOX for placement onto the BOX Book.
    Chapter VI, Section 5(c)(i) prohibits a Market Maker from rejecting
a Directed Order. This means that upon systematically indicating its
desire to accept Directed Orders, the BOX system prevents a Market
Maker that receives a Directed Order from either rejecting the receipt
of the Directed Order from the BOX Trading Host or rejecting the
Directed Order back to the OFP who sent it. A Market Maker who desires
to accept Directed Orders must systemically indicate that it is an EP
whenever the Market Maker wishes to receive Directed Orders from the
BOX Trading Host. If a Market Maker does not systemically indicate that
it is an EP, then the BOX Trading Host will not forward any Directed
Orders to that Market Maker. In such a case, the BOX Trading Host will
send the order directly to the BOX Book.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 5(c)(i)
(Directed Order Process) of the BOX Rules to allow EPs to provide BOX a
list of OFPs for which the EP will provide Directed Order services.
Under the proposal, prior to accepting any Directed Order through the
Trading Host, an EP must inform BOX of the OFPs from whom it has agreed
to accept Directed Orders (``Listed OFPs'' or ``LOFPs''). The Trading
Host will then only send to the EP Directed Orders from LOFPs. In
addition, unlike all other orders submitted to the BOX Trading Host,
Directed Orders are not anonymous based on a pilot program discussed in
BSE-2006-14.\4\ This practice will continue under this proposed rule
change because BOX proposes that the BOX Trading Host will reveal to
the EP the participant ID of the OFP sending the Directed Order.
Shortly after the filing of this proposed rule change, the original
proposal relating to the non-

anonymity of Directed Orders (BSE-2005-52) will be withdrawn.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53516 (March 20,
2006), 71 FR 15232 (March 27, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-14); 54082 (June
30, 2006), 71 FR 38913 (July 10, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-29); 54469
(September 19, 2006), 71 FR 56201 (September 26, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-
38); 55139 (January 19, 2007), 72 FR 3448 (January 25, 2007) (SR-
BSE-2007-01); 56014 (July 5, 2007), 72 FR 38104 (July 12, 2007) (SR-
BSE-2007-31); 57195 (January 24, 2008), 73 FR 5610 (January 30,
2008) (SR-BSE-2008-04); 59311 (January 28, 2009), 74 FR 6071
(February 4, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-007); 59983 (May 27, 2009), 74 FR
26445 (June 2, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-027); 61065 (November 25, 2009), 74
FR 62860 (December 1, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-076); 61577 (February 24,
2010), 75 FR 9464 (March 2, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-017); 61929 (April 16,
2010), 75 FR 21085 (April 22, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-031) and 62366 (June
23, 2010), 75 FR 37863 (June 30, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-041).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53357 (February 23,
2006), 71 FR 10730 (March 2, 2006) (SR-BSE-2005-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the withdrawal of BSE-2005-52, BSE-2006-14 will automatically
expire.\6\ Therefore, concurrent with the filing of the proposal, the
Exchange has proposed a new Pilot Program designed to function in
exactly the same manner as under the original Pilot Program (``BSE-
2006-14'') \7\, which clarified that Directed Orders on BOX are not
anonymous. The new Pilot Program allows BOX's current Directed Order
rule and process to continue on an uninterrupted basis.\8\ This new
pilot period will afford the Commission the necessary time to consider
the Exchange's proposal to amend the BOX Rules to permit EPs to only
receive Directed Orders through the Trading Host from OFPs whom the EP
has designated. In the event the Commission reaches a decision with
respect to the Exchange's proposal to amend the BOX Rules before
December 31, 2010, the Directed Order Process Pilot Program governing
the Directed Order process on BOX will cease to be effective at the
time of that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62366 (June 23,
2010), 75 FR 37863 (June 30, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-041).
    \7\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63540 (December
3, 2010 [sic]) (SR-BX-2010-080). The Commission notes that SR-BX-
2010-080 was filed on December 13, 2010. See also supra note 4. BSE-
2006-14 has been in effect since March 14, 2006 as the Commission
solicited comments and considered its effect on price improvement.
Together these Pilots have constituted the ``Directed Order Process
Pilot Program''.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63540 (December 3,
2010 [sic]) (SR-BX-2010-080). The Commission notes that SR-BX-2010-
080 was filed on December 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretionary Service
    BOX notes that in all events, whether a Market Maker elects to
accept Directed Orders or chooses systematically not to accept any
Directed Orders, its displayed best bid and offer are firm and
accessible for automatic executions by all order submitters. In other
words, the Directed Order process is a discretionary service that
Market Makers may choose to provide or not, above and beyond satisfying
their core market maker obligations of providing continuous two-sided
firm quotations on a nondiscriminatory basis. Just as other market
makers may and do choose to provide, or not, other discretionary
services, such as payment for order flow, BOX Market Makers may
identify the OFPs for which they may choose to provide such
discretionary service as Directed Order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47351 (February 11,
2003), 68 FR 8055 (February 19, 2003) SR-NASD-2002-60). As stated in
the adopting release, the New York Stock Exchange comment letter on
the Primex rule proposal argued that ``participants may selectively
trade against agency orders alone by using a mechanism to screen out
professional orders.'' The Nasdaq Stock Market responded ``that this
feature ensures that any price improvement or enhanced liquidity
opportunities be reserved for public customers, and not necessarily
professional traders who could otherwise take advantage of the
System's benefits and `pre-empt' the ability of a public customer to
receive such benefits.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
47351 (February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8055, 8058 (February 19, 2003) (SR-
NASD-2002-60). See generally Securities Exchange Act Release No.
42455 (February 24, 2000), 65 FR 11388 (March 2, 2000) (stating that
the Primary Market Makers and Competitive Market Makers on the ISE
``will have the ability to set parameters regarding their
willingness to trade generally with a broker-dealer's proprietary
order.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the fact that the Directed Order process is a
discretionary service, allowing EPs to provide BOX a list of OFPs to
whom it will provide Directed Order services is not only consistent
with the statute \10\--which does not prohibit broker-dealers from
determining which customer for whom it will provide a discretionary
service, but also is highly desirable. As is true with respect to any
discretionary service, without some control over the OFPs from whom
Market Makers will accept Directed Orders, Market Makers may be
expected to provide less of the service. This is specifically true with
respect to the Directed Order process because the automated customer
protections built into the Directed Order process, absent the ability
to control the OFPs for whom it will provide the service, could and
almost certainly would have the unintended consequences of creating an
opportunity for Options Participants to engage in abusive practices
that jeopardize the ability of all Market Makers to price improve
customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52827 (November 23,
2005), 70 FR 72139 (December 1, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-56) (generally
approving proposal by the Pacific Exchange to ``add a provision that
requires Users to be given permission by DMMs in order to send a
Directed Order to that DMM.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An EP's quote at the NBBO is taken down upon BOX's receipt of a
Directed Order and yet is still guaranteed as a Firm Quote for at least
three seconds regardless of whether market prices change during that
time (known as the Guaranteed Directed Order (``GDO'')). Because of the
three second GDO, it is possible that some Options Participants,
including market makers, could send large numbers of Directed Orders to
EP competitors using strategies that could continually cause the EP to
yield priority (if it declines to PIP the order). This outcome is
particularly problematic since, at a minimum, the EP is forced to forgo
whatever time priority he may have had over his competitors at the top
of the BOX Book for the given option series of the Directed Order.
Moreover, the EP is also obligated to provide the GDO for at least
three seconds and trade with any unexecuted Directed Order quantity
(but only if no other Options Participant wants to trade with the
Directed Order). Essentially this means the EP will trade with the
declined Directed Order only when no one else wishes to interact with
that order. Without the protection of being sent Directed Orders only
from LOFPs, EPs will have to modify their risk assessment and therefore
give less price improvement to everyone--or perhaps stop accepting any
Directed Orders and not giving price improvement at all. This effect
would significantly harm the retail investors who have benefited from
the BOX price improvement system since its inception.
Anonymity
    Under the proposal the Exchange seeks to reveal to the EP the
Participant ID of the OFP sending the Directed Order.\11\ The Market
Makers must submit this Participant ID to BOX whenever the Market Maker
chooses to submit the Directed Order and his Primary Improvement Order
to the PIP process. However, once the Directed Order is submitted to
the PIP process or the BOX Book, the Participant ID is not shown to any
market participant and the identity of the OFP will be anonymous
pursuant to Chapter V, Section 14(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar version of the proposed directed order process regarding
anonymity has been operating successfully under the Directed Order
Process Pilot Program for over four and a half years without negative
effect to investors or price improvement. BOX believes that allowing
the Participant ID to be revealed to the EP has had a positive
influence on price improvement.\12\ Anonymity of market participants is
not required under the Exchange Act. The identification of the OFP in
the Directed Order process is consistent with the requirements set
forth under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act in that it will benefit
the marketplace and protect investors

because it will give Market Makers the ability to identify the firms
for whom it will provide this discretionary service. This proposal will
allow Options Participants to make better informed decisions in
determining when and how to use the Directed Order process, while also
motivating Market Makers to continue to provide the high levels of
price improvement available to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, in the month of August 2010, price improved
contracts on BOX increased to an average of 204,090 per day, setting
an all-time record, with total improvement to investors of $5.4
million. From its inception to August 2010, BOX had provided
investors over $296 million of price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, BOX notes that the proposal is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, brokers, or dealers,
and satisfies the statutory mandates of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act because upon systematically indicating its desire to accept
Directed Orders from LOFPs, the BOX system prevents a Market Maker that
receives a Directed Order from either rejecting the receipt of the
Directed Order from the BOX Trading Host or rejecting the Directed
Order back to the OFP who sent it. Further, the BOX Rules guarantee
equal access to the PIP and the BOX Book for customers, brokers, and
dealers for those that do not wish to use the Directed Order process.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the Exchange notes that anonymity of market participants
is not required under the Exchange Act and believes that this proposed
rule change will benefit the marketplace and protect investors because
it will give Market Makers the ability to identify the firms for whom
it will provide this discretionary service. This proposal will allow
Options Participants to make better informed decisions in determining
when and how to use the Directed Order process, while also motivating
Market Makers to continue to provide the high levels of price
improvement available to investors in the BOX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposal is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, brokers, or
dealers, and satisfies the statutory mandates of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act because upon systematically indicating its desire to
accept Directed Orders from LOFPs, the BOX system prevents a Market
Maker that receives a Directed Order from either rejecting the receipt
of the Directed Order from the BOX Trading Host or rejecting the
Directed Order back to the OFP who sent it. Further, the BOX Rules
guarantee equal access to the PIP and the BOX Book for customers,
brokers, and dealers for those that do not wish to use the Directed
Order process.

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 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-079 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-BX-2010-079. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and
copying at the Exchange's principal office. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-079 and should be submitted on
or before January 10, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31826 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36485]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-778-006.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Rate Case (RP21-778) Settlement
Filing to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220610-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-977-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing to Incorporate Approved
Changes from RP22-738-000 to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220610-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-978-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Pioneer July-Sept 2022) to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220610-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/22.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: June 13, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13117 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 29903]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1812-000]

Sunflower Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sunflower Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 23, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed roceedings
should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 3, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09815 Filed 5-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 46456-46457]
[DOCID:fr20au07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-44-000; CP07-45-000]

Southeast Supply Header, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Southeast Supply Header
Project

August 10, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Southeast
Supply Header, LLC (SESH) under the above-referenced dockets. SESH's
Southeast Supply Header Project (Project) would be located in various
counties and parishes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
    The Final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that the
proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as
recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service
(NPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE), and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) are federal cooperating agencies for the development of this
EIS. A federal cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved with the
proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis.
    The purpose of the Project is to provide new transportation
capacity that significantly enhances access to reliable, onshore gas
supplies to serve growing demand in the Southeast. To provide this
service, SESH proposes to construct and operate approximately 270 miles
of natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of
transporting up to approximately 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of
natural gas.
    The Final EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts
resulting from the construction and operation of the following
facilities:
     Approximately 104 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline extending southeasterly from Richland Parish, Louisiana to
Lawrence County, Mississippi;
     Approximately 165 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County, Mississippi to
Mobile County, Alabama;
     Approximately 1.7 miles of 6-, 16-, 20-, 24- and 42-inch-
diameter laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties,
Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama;
     Three new compressor stations, the Delhi, Gwinville, and
the Lucedale Compressor Stations, located in Richland Parish,
Louisiana, and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi,
respectively;
     Two natural gas booster stations, the Collins Booster
Station and Petal Booster Station in Covington and Forrest counties,
Mississippi, respectively; and
     Other ancillary facilities including 13 meter and
regulator facilities, 18 mainline valves, 2 tap valves, and 3 pig
launcher and/or receiver facilities.
    Dependent upon Commission approval, SESH proposes to commence
construction of the proposed Project in November 2007.
    The Final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2-A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies of the Final EIS are available from the
Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, CD copies of the
Final EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; various federal,
state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental
and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and
newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an
interest in the proposed Project. Hard copies of the Final EIS have
been mailed to those who requested that format during the scoping and
comment periods for the proposed Project.
    In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action
may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) publishes a notice of availability of a Final EIS.
However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an
agency decision is subject to a formal internal process that allows
other agencies or the public to make their views known. In such cases,
the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of the
Final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently.
Should the FERC issue SESH authorizations for the proposed Project, it
would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the
Commission could issue its decision concurrently with the EPA's notice
of availability.
    Additional information about the proposed Project is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). To access information

via the FERC Web site click on the ``eLibrary'' link then click on
``General Search'' and enter the docket number (i.e., CP07-44)
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you
have selected an appropriate date range. The ``eLibrary'' link provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with ``eLibrary,''
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In addition, the Commission now 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
these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to sign up for
this

service, please go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16247 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70364-70366]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0606; Project Identifier 2019-SW-070-AD; Amendment
39-21832; AD 2021-24-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109E, A109S, and AW109SP helicopters.
This AD was prompted by reports of main landing gear (MLG) wheel
assembly failure. This AD requires repetitive inspections of each
affected MLG strut assembly and, depending on the findings, replacement
of an affected MLG strut assembly with a serviceable assembly, or
application of corrosion preventive compound, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 14, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0606.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0606; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0182, dated July 26, 2019 (EASA
AD 2019-0182), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A.
Helicopters, formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A. Helicopter Division,
AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A., Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, and
AW109SP helicopters, all serial numbers. Model A109LUH helicopters are
not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
helicopters in the applicability. Although EASA AD 2019-0182 applies to
Model A109E, A109S and AW109SP helicopters, all manufacturer serial
numbers, this AD applies to helicopters with an affected assembly
installed.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Leonardo S.p.a. Model
A109E, A109S, and AW109SP helicopters, certificated in any category,
with an affected assembly as identified in EASA AD 2019-0182. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2021 (86 FR 40964). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of MLG wheel assembly failure on Model
A109E helicopters. Subsequent investigations identified stress
corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement on the threaded end of the MLG
strut, where lack of cadmium plating was observed, and determined that
a certain batch of ``enhanced'' MLGs may be affected. Due to design
similarity Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters are also affected. The
NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of each affected MLG
strut assembly and, depending on the findings, replacement of an
affected MLG strut assembly with a serviceable assembly, or application
of corrosion preventive compound, as specified in EASA AD 2019-0182.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address stress corrosion and hydrogen
embrittlement on the threaded end of the MLG strut in the MLG wheel
assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to cracks on the
affected MLG assembly, resulting in damage or failure of the MLG and
consequent damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants. See EASA
AD 2019-0182 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from one commenter. The commenter was
Air Methods Corporation. The following presents the comment received on
the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Allow Part Replacement

    Air Methods Corporation requested that paragraph (h)(6) of the
proposed AD be revised to include an option so an operator can replace
a part or assembly that has an inspection finding of ``questionable/
intermediate'' at the operator's discretion, instead of having to
coordinate with the manufacturer. The commenter explained that the
instructions for replacing a part or assembly that has a determinate
inspection finding (for example, a crack) are already in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0182 and these same instructions
could be used for parts that have a ``questionable/intermediate''
inspection finding.
    The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request and will
provide clarification regarding the requirement specified in paragraph
(h)(6) of this AD. The FAA identified an error in paragraph (h)(6) of
the proposed AD that could have caused an operator to misinterpret when
to contact the manufacturer for corrective action if there was an
inspection finding of ``some burr'' from the liquid penetrant
inspection specified in Annex A of the service information referenced
in EASA AD 2019-0182. In the proposed AD, paragraph (h)(6) stated
``Where Annex A of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0182 specifies to contact the manufacturer if there is any indication
of cracking due to `some burr' . . . .'' This language should not have
included ``of cracking'' because any burr indication finding requires
contacting the manufacturer. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(6) of
this AD to remove the words ``of cracking.''
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to provide an
option for the removal and replacement of a part having an indication
of ``some burr'', or signs of arcing or burning, without contacting the
manufacturer. The FAA contacted EASA, the foreign authority that has
State of Design for these helicopter models, and discussed an option to
permit the replacement of a potentially discrepant component without
contacting the manufacturer. Based upon this discussion the FAA
concluded that the affected part is still under investigation and the
manufacturer needs to gather additional information from operators to
determine the extent of the identified conditions and if additional
corrective actions are needed. The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0182 requires repetitive inspections of each affected
MLG assembly and, depending on the findings, replacement of an affected
MLG strut assembly with a serviceable assembly, or application of
corrosion preventive compound. EASA AD 2019-0182 allows the
installation of an affected MLG strut assembly on any helicopter,
provided it is a serviceable assembly, as defined in EASA AD 2019-0182.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 99 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and application of     2 work-hours x $85  $17 per inspection  $187 per            $18,513 per
 corrosion protective compound.    per hour = $170     cycle.              inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of damaged MLG strut assembly.....  3 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $28,100         $28,355
                                                 $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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.

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,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 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:

2021-24-11 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21832 Docket No. FAA-2021-
0606; Project Identifier 2019-SW-070-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 14, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109E, A109S, and
AW109SP helicopters, certificated in any category, with an affected
assembly as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2019-0182, dated July 26, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0182)
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3213, Main Landing
Gear Strut/Axle/Truck.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of main landing gear (MLG) wheel
assembly failure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address stress
corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement on the threaded end of the MLG
strut in the MLG wheel assembly. This condition, if not addressed,
could lead to cracks on the affected MLG assembly, resulting in
damage or failure of the MLG and consequent damage to the helicopter
and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0182.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0182

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0182 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2019-0182 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0182 specifies to return a certain part to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.
    (4) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2019-0182.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0182 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service.
    (6) Where Annex A of the service information referenced in EASA
AD 2019-0182 specifies to contact the manufacturer if there is any
indication due to ``some burr''; and Annex B of the service
information specifies to contact the manufacturer if there are signs
of arcing or burning on a part; before further flight, the
instructions or corrective actions (including part replacement if
necessary) must be accomplished using a method approved by the
Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Leonardo
S.p.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0182
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, 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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7323; email [email protected].

(l) Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0182,
dated July 26, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2019-0182, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0606.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 15, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26681 Filed 12-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P