[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60244-60247]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27560; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-211-AD;
Amendment 39-15198; AD 2007-19-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -
200CB Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. This
AD requires inspections to detect scribe lines and cracks of the
fuselage skin, lap joints, circumferential butt splice strap, and
external and internal approved repairs; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of scribe
lines adjacent to the skin lap joints. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracks, which could grow and cause rapid decompression of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 28, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 28,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
 or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6450; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov

or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the ground floor of the
West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES
section.

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model
757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. That NPRM was published
in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12125). That NPRM
proposed to require inspections to detect scribe lines and cracks of
the fuselage skin, lap joints, circumferential butt splice strap, and
external and internal approved repairs; and related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing, Continental Airlines (CAL), and the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) support the NPRM.

Request To Extend Rulemaking to Additional Airplanes

    The NTSB asserts that scribe lines could be present on virtually
every pressurized airplane in service. The NTSB requests that we
examine and expedite similar rulemaking for other makes and models of
airplanes in addition to the Model 757 airplanes subject to the NPRM.
    We acknowledge the NTSB's concerns. The unsafe condition identified
in this action is a long-term durability issue that might not be
limited to any particular airplane model. The potential consequences
for each airplane model will vary with each model's design
characteristics and operating conditions. To this end, we have
coordinated efforts with other governing regulatory agencies and other
manufacturers to investigate the existence of scribe lines on other
airplanes and any potential safety risks associated with such scribe
lines. As a result of these efforts, we might consider similar
rulemaking on other airplanes.
    Pending the inspection results provided in the reports required by
this AD, we might consider further rulemaking to require inspections on
Model 757-300 airplanes. And we are considering similar rulemaking for
Boeing Model 747 airplanes. We have already issued an AD for all Boeing
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes (AD
2006-07-12, amendment 39-14539, 71 FR 16211, March 31, 2006).

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    Continental Airlines (CAL) believes that the accomplishment
timetables in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2007, for approved repairs are overly conservative. CAL
notes that scribe lines on flush repairs are not considered critical on
Model 737 airplanes, and AD 2006-07-12 does not require similar
inspections for those airplanes. CAL compares compliance times for
initial scribe line inspections with those for approved repair
inspections, and asserts that the proposed repair inspection would
occur in a line environment without benefit of the support offered
during a heavy maintenance check. CAL notes that no crack attributable
to scribe lines has ever been found on the Model 757 fleet and that the
Model 757 scribe line program is extrapolated from the Model 737
program; in the Model 737 scribe line inspection program all approved
repair inspections generally coincide in accomplishment timeframe with
the main scribe line program. Therefore CAL requests that we revise the
accomplishment timetables of the approved repair section of the 757
scribe line program to better coincide with the mainline program.
    We disagree with the request. The timetables, developed by Boeing
in cooperation with the 757 Scribe Line Working Group, are based on
extensive technical evaluation and analysis to reflect the differences
in construction between the two models. In determining the
appropriateness of the proposed compliance times, we considered the
average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects
of an orderly inspection of the fleet during regular maintenance
periods. We have determined that the compliance times, as proposed,
will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request for Limited Return to Service (LRTS) Program for Zone C

    Continental Airlines (CAL) notes that Table 5 (paragraph 1.E.) of
the service bulletin specifies inspections for scribe lines on approved
repairs in Zone C but provides no limited return to service (LRTS)
program if scribe lines are found. CAL notes that these inspections
will be required much earlier than other inspections in the program.
Due to their urgent nature, these inspections will be required to be
done in a line maintenance environment, instead of a longer span heavy
check. CAL concludes that the lack of a readily

available approved LRTS for any scribe lines found during these
inspections would have a significantly negative impact on its
operation. CAL believes that typical scribe lines found on such repairs
should have an approved LRTS for several reasons. No scribe lines on
approved repairs have resulted in cracks on the Model 757 fleet.
Approved repairs on Model 757 skins would by definition include enough
static strength to contain the damage to the local area, as well as
damage tolerance analysis as mandated by section 25.571 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571). Even if analysis is not ready for
such repairs, CAL suggests imposing the most conservative inspection
interval of 250 flight cycles, as specified in the Model 737 LRTS
program, so that an airline could continue its operation until a more
permanent disposition can be approved by Boeing and the FAA.
    We disagree. Providing repair instructions in the service bulletin
for all possible repair conditions is not feasible. The LRTS program
must be customized for individual repair configurations. For Zone C,
the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for additional
analysis and an LRTS program. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Revise LRTS Inspection Interval

    Because no cracking has been found on Model 757 airplanes, American
Airlines requests that we relax the proposed interval for the LRTS
inspections. First, the commenter requests that we revise the NPRM to
allow operators to inspect at the next scheduled C-check (as an option
to the proposed flight-cycle interval). Second, the commenter requests
that subsequent inspections be done within an applicable flight-cycle
interval, or at the next scheduled C-check after the last LRTS
inspection. Third, the commenter requests that we extend the interval
for an LRTS inspection, which includes the decal inspection area in
Zone C, from 1,000 flight cycles, which the commenter finds overly
frequent, to 1,500 flight cycles, which is in line with the other
intervals for similar inspection areas.
    We disagree with the requests. The intervals were developed by
Boeing in conjunction with the Model 757 scribeline working group based
on analysis and technical evaluations to reflect the Model 757's unique
construction details and stresses. We have determined that the proposed
compliance times represent the maximum intervals allowable for affected
airplanes to continue to safely operate before the inspections are
done. Since maintenance schedules vary among operators, there would be
no assurance that the airplane would be inspected during the maximum
interval if we were to allow operators the option of inspecting at the
next C-check. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request for Repair Instructions

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American
Airlines, requests that repair instructions be included in the service
bulletin because requiring FAA approval of each specific repair adds
undue complexity and delay to the process.
    We disagree. Each repair will likely be unique and tailored for
specific conditions. It would be impossible to identify repairs that
would adequately address all possible findings in all possible
locations. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Compliance Times

    ATA, on behalf of American Airlines, considers the compliance time
information specified in the NPRM vague and requests that we revise the
NPRM to simply state that the compliance times specified in the service
bulletin will be mandated by the AD.
    We disagree with the need to clarify the compliance times in the
NPRM. Paragraph 1.E. is the standard location of compliance time
information in a service bulletin. The NPRM specified doing the actions
``within the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of the
service bulletin.'' The times specified in the service bulletin are
clear and specific. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.

Request for Alternative Inspection Method: Zones A and B

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests an alternative inspection method
for the inspections specified in the NPRM for the lap joints and
external repairs in Zones A and B. NWA's proposal would allow operators
to do an ultrasonic phased-array inspection without stripping the paint
from the affected locations, and eventually (before 50,000 total flight
cycles or at the next scheduled fuselage paint removal, whichever
occurs first) stripping the paint from affected locations and
inspecting for scribe lines as specified in the service bulletin. (The
ultrasonic phased-array inspection is described in the Boeing 757 NDT
Manual, Part 4, Section 53-00-02.) NWA believes that its proposal would
eliminate the need to strip the paint, and yet allow the detection of
cracks before they reach an unacceptable length, thereby providing an
acceptable level of safety. NWA adds that these procedures would delay
the unsightly stripping of selected lap splice areas on an airplane
until repainting the entire fuselage was necessary.
    We disagree with the request. The fay surface sealant in the lap
joints significantly attenuates the ultrasonic signal, and would affect
the accuracy of the inspection results. This assessment has been
coordinated with Boeing. Further, ultrasonic inspections can detect
only cracks--not scribe lines. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue. However, paragraph (j) of the final rule provides
operators the opportunity to request an alternative method of
compliance if the request includes data that prove that the new method
would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request for Alternative Inspection Method: Parts 9 and 10

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests that we revise the proposed
requirements for the scribe line inspection and LRTS program (Part 9
and Part 10, respectively, of the service bulletin). Part 9 and Part 10
specify surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections from the
butt joint forward of the affected scribe line to the butt joint aft of
the affected scribe line, using the Boeing 757 NDT, Part 6, 51-00-01 or
757 NDT, Part 6, 51-00-19 if the scribe line is greater than 0.063 inch
from the lower edge of the upper skin. NWA reports that Boeing has
indicated that the HFEC inspection procedure local to scribe lines
greater than 0.063 inch from the lower edge of the upper skin would be
structurally satisfactory if an ultrasonic inspection specified in the
757 NDT Manual, Part 4, 53-00-01 or 53-00-02 is accomplished from the
butt joint forward of the affected scribe line to the butt joint aft of
the affected scribe line. In addition, NWA understands that an AMOC to
AD 2006-07-12 has been granted for Model 737 airplanes for a similar
inspection technique. This process reduces the area required to be
inspected using pencil probes and will reduce the time required for
inspection. NWA requests that we revise the NPRM to include the
alternative inspection instead of considering this option only through
the AMOC process.
    We partially agree with this request. While Model 737 airplanes use
the ultrasonic inspection from the butt joint forward to the butt joint
aft of the affected scribe line, and a HFEC inspection local to scribe
lines greater than 0.063 inch from the lower edge of

the upper skin, this technique has not yet been confirmed to be
acceptable for use on Model 757 airplanes. We are working with Boeing
to determine if this inspection technique can be used on the Model 757
airplanes. If this technique is acceptable, a fleetwide AMOC might be
issued to allow this technique. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.

Request for Provisions for Converted Airplanes

    FedEx reports that it will convert about 90 passenger airplanes
into special freighters. FedEx considers these airplanes, after
conversion, to most closely resemble Group 6 airplanes, as that Group
is defined in the service bulletin. FedEx requests that we revise the
NPRM to do the following: Consider possible prorated compliance times;
identify the appropriate Group for converted airplanes; omit the
inspection area for decals forward of BS 661, where a new panel was
installed during conversion; omit the inspection of the butt joint at
BS 660; and define the areas, compliance times, and damage limits for
the inspection of the upper skins for decals aft of BS 660. According
to FedEx, providing these conditions in the AD instead of an AMOC would
be more expeditious.
    We disagree with the request. FedEx provided no details of the
conversion modification, so we cannot evaluate the merits of the claim
that these airplanes are similar to Group 6 airplanes. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (j) of the final rule, we may approve
requests for airplane group reassignments, if details of the
modification are provided that would substantiate that reassigning
these airplanes to Group 6 would be appropriate and provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 945 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet; of these, about 634 are U.S.-registered airplanes. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD. There are no U.S.-registered airplanes in Group 5
or Group 6.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
         Inspections             Work hours     Average labor     Cost per         registered       Fleet cost
                                                rate per hour     airplane         airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1......................             127             $80         $10,160                144      $1,463,040
Group 2......................             122              80           9,760                  6          58,560
Group 3......................             154              80          12,320                 75         924,000
Group 4......................             128              80          10,240                409       4,188,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-19-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-15198. Docket No. FAA-2007-27560;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-211-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective November 28, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision 1, dated January 10,
2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of scribe lines adjacent to the
fuselage skin lap joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks, which could grow and cause rapid decompression of
the airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspections

    (f) Perform detailed inspections to detect scribe lines and
cracks of the fuselage skin, lap joints, circumferential butt splice
strap, and external and internal approved repairs; and perform
related investigative and corrective actions. Do the actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007, except as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Do the actions within the
applicable compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E. of the
service bulletin, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate repair
instructions, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (h) Boeing Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2007, specifies compliance times relative to the date of
issuance of the service bulletin; however, this AD requires
compliance before the specified compliance time relative to the
effective date of the AD.

Credit for Prior Accomplishment

    (i) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, dated
September 18, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 757-53A0092, Revision
1, dated January 10, 2007, to perform the actions that are required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this
document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 Renton, Washington, on October 15, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20816 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 44897-44899]
[DOCID:fr09au07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56197; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Temporary Membership Status Access Fee

August 3, 2007.
    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 July 26, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A),\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to adopt a monthly access fee for persons granted
temporary CBOE membership status pursuant to Interpretation and Policy
.01 under CBOE Rule 3.19 (``Rule 3.19.01''). The text of the proposed
rule change is provided below. Changes are indicated by italics, and
deletions are [bracketed].
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, [INC.] Incorporated
Fees Schedule July [2]26, 2007.
    1.-4. Unchanged.
    Footnotes: (1)-(16) Unchanged.
    5.-21. Unchanged.
    22. TEMPORARY MEMBERSHIP STATUS ACCESS FEE $4700 per month*
    *This access fee is assessed to each person granted temporary CBOE
membership status under CBOE Rule 3.19.01. The access fee is due and
payable for each calendar month on the first day of that calendar
month. The first month for which the access fee will be assessed is
September 2007. The access fee is non-refundable except as specified
below. The access fee and any other applicable monthly fees will be
assessed for a calendar month unless the person provides written notice
to the Membership Department at least five business days prior to the
start of that month that the person is relinquishing temporary
membership status effective on a date prior to the start of that month.
The access fee will be assessed through the integrated billing system.
The access fee will terminate when the SEC takes final action on SR-
CBOE-2006-106. All access fees shall be payable to and held in an
interest-bearing escrow account maintained by the Exchange until the
SEC takes such final action. The Exchange will retain such fees if the
SEC approves SR-CBOE-2006-106, and such fees will be returned to the
payor, with interest, if the SEC disapproves SR-CBOE-2006-106.
    Remainder of Fee Schedule: Unchanged.
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
Rules
* * * * *
    Rule 3.19. Termination from Membership
    Rule 3.19. No change.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 If the proposed merger between Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Holdings, Inc. and CBOT Holdings, Inc. (``CME/CBOT Transaction''), the
parent company of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.
(``CBOT''), is consummated and if such consummation occurs before the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') takes final action
on SR-CBOE-2006-106, a person who is a member of CBOE (an ``exerciser
member'') pursuant to paragraph (b) of Article Fifth of the CBOE
Certificate of Incorporation (``Article Fifth(b)'') as of July 1, 2007
will be granted temporary membership status at the Exchange, until the
Commission takes final action on SR-CBOE-2006-106, if and only if such
person (i) Remains an exerciser member in good standing as of the close
of business on the trading day immediately before the consummation of
the CME/CBOT Transaction, (ii) thereafter remains in good standing and
continues to pay all applicable fees, dues, assessments and other like
charges that are assessed against CBOE members, and (iii) pays to the
Exchange, for each month starting in the second month after the CME/
CBOT Transaction is consummated, a monthly access fee [based on the
then current monthly lease fees being paid to lessors of the interest
that CBOT denominates as a full CBOT membership, with such fee to be]
set by the Exchange [on a monthly basis based on published lease fee
information]. Such access fee shall be due and payable in accordance
with the provisions of the Exchange Fee Schedule [advance of each
calendar month that the person decides to retain the temporary
membership status granted pursuant to this paragraph]. All such access
fees shall be payable to and held in an interest-bearing escrow account
maintained by the Exchange until the Commission takes final action on
SR-CBOE-2006-106. The Exchange will retain such fees if the Commission
approves SR-CBOE-2006-106, and such fees will be returned to the payor,
with interest, if the Commission disapproves SR-CBOE-2006-106. The
temporary membership status granted pursuant to this paragraph shall be
subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of CBOE under the Act, the
Constitution and the Rules, including CBOE's disciplinary jurisdiction
under Chapter XVII.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
CBOE 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
    Rule 3.19.01 granted temporary CBOE membership status to certain
persons in the event that the proposed merger between Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Holdings, Inc. and CBOT Holdings, Inc. (``CME/CBOT
Transaction''), the parent company of the Board of Trade of the City of
Chicago, Inc. (``CBOT''), were to be consummated before the Commission
took final action on CBOE's pending rule filing SR-CBOE-2006-106.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55190 (January 29,
2007), 72 FR 5472 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the adoption of Rule 3.19.01, the CME/CBOT
Transaction was consummated on July 12, 2007. As a result, there are
currently persons who have temporary CBOE membership status under Rule
3.19.01 until such time that the Commission takes final action on SR-
CBOE-2006-106.
    Specifically, under Rule 3.19.01, each person who was a member of
the Exchange pursuant to paragraph (b) of Article Fifth of the CBOE
Certificate of Incorporation (an ``exerciser member'') on July 1, 2007
and who satisfies the following conditions has been granted temporary
CBOE membership status until the Commission takes final action on SR-
CBOE-2006-106: (1) The person was an exerciser member in good standing
as of the close of business on the trading day immediately before the
consummation of the CME/CBOT Transaction; (2) the person remains in
good standing and continues to pay all applicable fees, dues,
assessments, and other like charges that are assessed to CBOE members;
and (3) the person pays a monthly access fee to the Exchange.
    In CBOE rule filing SR-CBOE-2007-77 \6\ which adopted Rule 3.19.01,
the Exchange stated that it was going to submit a subsequent rule
filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ to specify
the access fee to be charged under Rule 3.19.01 or the methodology for
determining it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56016 (July 5,
2007), 72 FR 38106 (July 12, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-77).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this rule filing is to specify the access fee to be
charged under Rule 3.19.01.
    The Exchange proposes to set the access fee for those granted
temporary CBOE membership status under Rule 3.19.01 at $4700 per month.
The Exchange indicated in SR-CBOE-2007-77 that the access fee would be
based on the then current monthly lease fees being paid to lessors of
what CBOT denominates as a full CBOT membership as reflected in
published lease fee information. Consistent with the foregoing, the
Exchange set the access fee to closely approximate the rate published
by CBOT on its Web site as the average lease rate as of June 28, 2007
for the month of July 2007 to lease all of the interests that composed
a full CBOT membership as of that date (which is $4711.40 per month).
    The Exchange has determined to have this rate remain in effect
until such time that the Exchange submits a further rule filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ to modify the access
fee or the Commission takes final action on SR-CBOE-2006-106.\9\
Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to delete the current provisions
of Rule 3.19.01 which indicate that the Exchange will set the access
fee on a monthly basis based on the then current monthly lease fees
being paid to lessors of what CBOT denominates as a full CBOT
membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ The Exchange will remove the access fee and the text
describing it from the CBOE Fee Schedule when the Commission takes
final action on SR-CBOE-2006-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed access fee of $4700 per
month is appropriate because it closely approximates an average of the
lease rates that exerciser members were paying during the month in
which the CME/CBOT Transaction was consummated and temporary CBOE
membership status under Rule 3.19.01 was granted. The Exchange removed
the requirement that the access fee be re-set each month based upon
then current CBOT lease rates because those rates could be impacted by
the implementation of Rule 3.19.01 and may not reflect what those rates
would have been in the absence of Rule 3.19.01. At the same time, the
Exchange will retain the flexibility to adjust the access fee in the
future through a rule filing submitted under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \10\ if the Exchange determines that it would be appropriate to
do so taking into consideration factors and circumstances prevailing at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 3.19.01 to delete the
provision that the access fee will be due and payable in advance of
each calendar month, and instead, to more fully address in the CBOE Fee
Schedule the manner in which the access fee will be assessed. This
approach is consistent with CBOE's general approach regarding Exchange
fees, which is to include the details regarding fee assessment in the
Fee Schedule instead of in rules.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the CBOE Fee
Schedule to specify the amount of the access fee and to add an
explanatory provision setting forth the details regarding its
assessment.
    First, the explanatory provision states that the access fee is due
and payable for each calendar month on the first day of that calendar
month. Rule 3.19.01 previously provided that the access fee would be
due and payable in advance of each calendar month. The time at which
the access fee will be assessed has been changed to the beginning of
the month because that is more consistent with CBOE's general billing
practices under which monthly fees are generally assessed at the
beginning of a month rather than in advance of a month.
    Second, the explanatory provision provides that the first month for
which the access fee will be assessed is September 2007, and the
Exchange proposes to make a corresponding change to Rule 3.19.01. Rule
3.19.01 previously provided that the access fee would be assessed for
each month starting in the month after consummation of the CME/CBOT
Transaction (which would have been August 2007). In order to effectuate
this change, Rule 3.19.01 is proposed to be revised to provide that the
access fee will be assessed for each month starting in the second month
after consummation of the CME/CBOT Transaction rather than in the first
month following its completion. The Exchange is making this change in
the interest of fairness so that there is an appropriate transition
time for persons granted temporary CBOE membership status under Rule
3.19.01.
    Third, the explanatory provision indicates that the access fee is
non-refundable except as specified below. This is consistent with how
other

Exchange fees are generally assessed. For example, CBOE Rule 2.20
provides that CBOE membership dues are assessed on a non-refundable
basis.
    Fourth, the explanatory provision states that the access fee and
any other applicable monthly fees will be assessed for a calendar month
unless a person with temporary CBOE membership status provides written
notice to the CBOE Membership Department at least five business days
prior to the start of that month that the person is relinquishing that
status effective on a date prior to the start of that month. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow time for the Exchange to
process such a change within its membership and billing systems prior
to the beginning of the next month.
    Fifth, the explanatory provision indicates that the access fee will
be assessed through the integrated billing system. This is consistent
with how Exchange fees are generally assessed pursuant to CBOE Rule
3.23.
    Finally, consistent with the provisions of Rule 3.19.01, the
explanatory provision indicates that the access fee will terminate when
the SEC takes final action on SR-CBOE-2006-106 (at which time the
Exchange will also remove the access fee and the text describing it
from the CBOE Fee Schedule); that all access fees shall be payable to
and held in an interest-bearing escrow account maintained by the
Exchange until the Commission takes such final action; that the
Exchange will retain such fees if the Exchange approves SR-CBOE-2006-
106; and that such fees will be returned to the payor, with interest,
if the Commission disapproves SR-CBOE-2006-106. In addition to stating
in the explanatory provision that such fees will be returned to the
payor with interest if the Commission disapproves SR-CBOE-2006-106,
Rule 3.19.01 is also proposed to be revised to make more explicit that
a return of these fees will be with interest. The Exchange believes
that the return of these fees with interest in the event the Commission
disapproves SR-CBOE-2006-106 was already provided for under Rule
3.19.01 and is making the foregoing change to Rule 3.19.01 solely to
eliminate any potential for ambiguity in this regard.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \14\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2007-91 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-91. 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 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2007-91 and should be
submitted on or before August 30, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15547 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 81927]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-30-002]

EasTrans, LLC; Notice of Motion for Extension of Rate Case Filing
Deadline

    Take notice that on December 16, 2011, EasTrans, LLC (EasTrans)
filed a request for an extension consistent with the Commission's
revised policy of periodic review from a triennial to a five year
period. The Commission in Order No. 735 modified its policy concerning
periodic reviews of rates charges by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines
to extend the cycle for such reviews from three to five years.\1\
Therefore, EasTrans requests that the date for its next rate filing be
extended to March 31, 2014, which is five years from the date of
EasTrans' most recent rate filing with this Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas
Companies, Order No. 735, 131 FERC ] 61,150 (May 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

    Dated: December 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33309 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54989-54990]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2547-095]

Village of Swanton, Vermont; Notice of Scoping Meetings and
Environmental Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2547-095.
    c. Date Filed: April 29, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Village of Swanton, Vermont (Village).
    e. Name of Project: Highgate Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Missisquoi River in Franklin County, Vermont. The
project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Reginald R. Beliveau, Jr., Manager--Village
of Swanton, 120 First Street, Swanton, Vermont 05488; call at (802)
868-3397; email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: October 29, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
MD 20852. All filings must clearly identify the project name and docket
number on the first page: Highgate Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-2547-
095).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. Project Description: The existing project consists of: (1) a dam
about 670 feet long that consists of: (a) a 235-foot-long earth-filled
embankment on the west bank; (b) a 174-foot-long concrete intake
structure; (c) a 226-foot-long ogee-shaped concrete spillway section
with a 15-foot-high pneumatic crest gate and a maximum crest elevation
of 190.0 foot National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) when
fully inflated; and (d) a 35-foot-long concrete abutment on the east
bank; (2) an impoundment with a storage capacity of 3,327 acre-feet at
an elevation of 190.0 feet NGVD29; (3) a 509-foot-long, 10.5-foot-wide,
and 10.5-foot-high concrete conduit connecting to a 243-foot-long, 12-
foot-diameter steel penstock that conveys flow from the intake
structure to the primary powerhouse; (4) a surge tank; (5) a concrete
and masonry main powerhouse containing two 1.0-megawatt (MW), one 2.8-
MW, and one 6.0-MW vertical Francis turbine-generators; (6) a 75-foot-
long, 5-foot-diameter steel penstock conveying flow from the intake
structure to a 0.710-MW crossflow turbine-generator located within a
secondary concrete powerhouse; (7) a substation; (8) a 0.5-mile-long,
32-megavolt ampere transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities.
The project creates an approximately 1,100-foot-long bypassed reach of
the Missisquoi River between the dam and the primary powerhouse
discharge.
    The current license requires that the project operate as a run-of-
river facility such that outflow approximates inflow between March 31
and June 1. From June 1 through March 30, the Village operates the
project as a peaking facility by generating electricity during daily
peak demand periods. When peaking, the Village limits the daily
impoundment drawdown to 30 inches or less from the full pond elevation
of 190 feet NGVD29. The current license also requires a minimum flow
release of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow if less, as
measured downstream of the primary powerhouse. The 200-cfs minimum flow
must include at least 35

cfs or inflow if less, that is released from the dam to the bypassed
reach. The average annual generation of the project was approximately
40,667 megawatt-hours from 1989 to 2020.
    The applicant proposes to modify current project operation to: (1)
operate the project in run-of-river mode between March 31 and June 15,
and during periods when inflow is 400 cfs or less, instead of between
March 31 and June 1 under current operation; (2) operate the project in
a peaking mode from June 16 through March 30; (3) limit impoundment
drawdowns during peaking operation to 18 to 24 inches, instead of 30
inches under current operation; (4) refill the impoundment within 8
hours of each drawdown for peaking operation; and (5) continue to
provide a minimum flow of 200 cfs downstream of the primary powerhouse,
including the following minimum flows to the bypassed reach: 150 cfs in
April and May, 70 cfs in June, and 35 cfs from July through March.
    The applicant proposes the following environmental measures: (1)
develop a freshwater mussel plan for relocating mussels when the
impoundment is lowered to 186 feet NGVD 29 or less for prolonged
periods of time; (2) develop a plan for protecting horn-leaved
riverweed downstream of the Swanton Dam ledges, which are located
approximately 7 miles downstream of the powerhouse; (3) provide
aesthetic flows of 1 to 3 inches of spill over the dam during certain
holidays; (4) improve an existing parking area to accommodate 5 to 7
cars for recreation users; (5) develop a plan to provide access for
hand-carry water craft to the impoundment and downstream of the
project; and (6) develop an historic properties management plan to
protect historic properties.
    The applicant also proposes to: (1) conduct a post-licensing
evaluation of the feasibility of using the existing downstream Swanton
Dam canal works for upstream fish passage; (2) develop a recreational
maintenance and enhancement plan to guide regular maintenance
activities at recreation facilities; (3) install a warning system to
alert recreation users to increases in flow in the bypassed reach and
downstream of the powerhouse; and (4) install an electric vehicle
charging station for five vehicles using electricity produced by the
hydroelectric plant.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at https://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    You may also register at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected].
    n. Scoping Process: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), Commission staff intends to prepare either an environmental
assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)
(collectively referred to as the ``NEPA document'') that describes and
evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-
specific and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and
alternatives. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the
required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements,
irrespective of whether the Commission issues an EA or an EIS.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two public scoping meetings to receive
input on the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed
in the NEPA document. The daytime meeting will focus on the concerns of
resource agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Native
American tribes. The evening meeting will focus on receiving input from
the public. All interested individuals, resource agencies, Native
American tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, September 29, 2022
Time: 10 a.m. (EDT)
Place: Highgate Elementary School, White Room
Address: 219 Gore Road, Highgate Center, Vermont 05459

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date: Thursday, September 29, 2022
Time: 7 p.m. (EDT)
Place: Highgate Elementary School, White Room
Address: 219 Gore Road, Highgate Center, Vermont, 05459

    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at
the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental
site review of the project beginning at 1 p.m. on September 29, 2022.
All interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to
attend. All participants should meet at the parking lot next to the
project dam, which is located at126, Baker Road, Highgate Center,
Vermont 05459. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation to the site and during the site visit. If you plan to
attend the environmental site review, please contact Mr. Reginald R.
Beliveau, Jr. of the Village of Swanton, Vermont at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
via email at [email protected] on or before September 23, 2022.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the NEPA
document; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available
information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue;
(3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that
should be analyzed in the NEPA document, including viewpoints in
opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4)
determine the resource issues to be addressed in the NEPA document; and
(5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as
those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Individuals,
NGOs, Native American tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise
and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the
staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA
document.

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19402 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23972]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-40-000]

Morongo Transmission LLC; Notice of Petition For Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on April 17, 2014, Morongo Transmission LLC
(Morongo Transmission), pursuant to section 207(a)(2) of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), filed a petition for declaratory order
requesting that the Commission approve a rate methodology for Morongo
Transmission in connection with its participation in the West of Devers
Upgrade Project being developed by South California Edison Company
(SCE), as more fully described in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
    For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 19, 2014.

    Dated: April 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09663 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P