[Federal Register: March 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 11988-11991]
[DOCID:fr20mr09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0054]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0054 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this
Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included
in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions
at the end of each 2-year period. The 17 individuals listed in this
notice each have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate
commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of
each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve
the required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Dan B. Clark

    Mr. Clark, age 44, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 2004. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/400 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Given the visual
function with your left eye, you have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate the commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Clark
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years,
accumulating 640,000 miles. He holds a Class A commercial driver's
license (CDL) from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation, speeding in a
CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 9 mph.

Mark A. Cruz

    Mr. Cruz, 25, has a retinal lesion in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1998. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr.
Cruz does in fact have sufficient visual acuity and visual field to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cruz reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 36,000 miles. He holds a
Class C operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Terry J. Dare

    Mr. Dare, 44, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a central
scotoma that occurred as a result of a traumatic injury sustained in
1970. The visual acuity in his right eye is count-fingers and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``It is my opinion that there is no deficiency to prohibit him
from driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Dare reported that he has
straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Frank A. DeWitt

    Mr. DeWitt, 47, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1995. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my professional
opinion, Mr. DeWitt is capable of recognizing the colors of the traffic
signals, and is capable to perform the tasks that are required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. DeWitt reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 4.0 million miles. He
holds a chauffeur operator's license from Indiana. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Kenneth E. Flack, Jr.

    Mr. Flack, 40, has loss of vision in his right eye due to retinal
scarring from an ocular injury sustained in 1992. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``I believe he
does have the vision needed in order to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Flack reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years,
accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for a moving violation in a CMV.

Maylin E. Frickey

    Mr. Frickey, 59, has a prosthetic right eye due to traumatic injury
sustained in 1963. The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Frickey has sufficient vision to properly operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Frickey reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 816,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 12 years, accumulating 720,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation, speeding in
a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 15 mph.

Vincent E. Hardin

    Mr. Hardin, 49, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic injury sustained in 1998. The best corrected visual acuity
in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Hardin has sufficient
vision to perform driving tasks required to operate many commercial
vehicles.'' Mr. Hardin reported that he has driven straight trucks for
10 years, accumulating 98,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's

license from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Larry M. Hawkins

    Mr. Hawkins, 56, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
corneal scar from a chemical burn sustained in 1991. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is light perception and in his left eye,
20/15. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my
opinion, Larry Hawkins has sufficient vision to drive commercial
vehicles safely with his present vision.'' Mr. Hawkins reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 700,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 900,000
miles.
    He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Ronald R. Hunt

    Mr. Hunt, 66, has had amblyopia in his left eye since early
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25
and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Hunt has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hunt reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 183,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
30 years, accumulating approximately 2.8 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and one conviction for a moving violation, speeding in a CMV.
He exceeded the speed limit by 11 mph.

Michael E. Lafferty

    Mr. Lafferty, 52, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1983. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is light perception and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion,
Mr. Lafferty has the visual capability to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Lafferty reported that he has driven straight trucks for
34 years, accumulating 340,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 34 years, accumulating 680,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael A. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell, 41, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained at age 5. The best corrected visual acuity in his left
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Michael Mitchell has the vision
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mitchell reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 1.0 million
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating
200,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Eric E. Myers

    Mr. Myers, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I feel he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle and obtain a vision waiver pursuant to Article VISION
391.41(b)(10) for an exemption under controlling authority at 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315.'' Mr. Myers reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 23\1/2\ years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a
Class C operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving
violation, speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.

Travis W. Neiwert

    Mr. Neiwert, 42, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained at age 4. The best corrected visual
acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``I do not see any issues that would limit his
ability to operate a commercial vehicle. He has worked with having
vision in only one eye since his youth and uses head movement to
increase his field of vision.'' Mr. Neiwert reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 634,400 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael G. Trueblood

    Mr. Trueblood, 59, has loss of vision in his left eye due to an
optic nerve anomaly since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/15 and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``I certify that in my
opinion, Michael Trueblood has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Trueblood
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14\1/2\ years,
accumulating 514,750 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Donald A. Uplinger, II

    Mr. Uplinger, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``He does have sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Uplinger reported that he has tractor-trailer
combinations for 38 years, accumulating 2.9 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven M. Vujicic

    Mr. Vujicic, 28, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``He does have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vujicic
reported that he has tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years,
accumulating 165,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph Watkins

    Mr. Watkins, 46, has loss of vision in his right eye due a
traumatic injury sustained in 1984. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr.
Watkins has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Watkins reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 500,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 3.0 million miles. He
holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public

comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business April 20, 2009. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant
information that becomes available after the comment closing date.
Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.

    Issued on: March 16, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-6059 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29260-29262]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11126]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0250; FRL 9946-28-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Midwest Environmental
Defense Center, Inc. (MEDC or Plaintiff), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: Midwest Environmental
Defense Center v. McCarthy, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-1511 (E.D. Wis.).
On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Gina
McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), failed to

perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny within 60 days a
petition submitted by Plaintiff on October 28, 2013, requesting that
EPA object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (``WDNR''), to Appleton Coated, LLC, authorizing
the operation of its facility located in Combined Locks, Wisconsin. The
proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take such
action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by June 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0250, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Conrad, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiff seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA
section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA
would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed
by Plaintiff regarding the Appleton Coated, LLC facility located in
Combined Locks, Wisconsin pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on
or before October 14, 2016.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would
expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the
Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such
response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the
settlement in regard to Plaintiff's attorney fees.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0250) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business
information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official
public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a
public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket
but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-11126 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64223-64224]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0018; OMB No. 1660-NW132]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; FEMA-Administered Disaster Case Management
Intake Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general
public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension without
change of a currently approved information collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting

``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address [email protected] or
Rebekah Kennedy, Team Lead, Community Services Section, Individual
Assistance Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2021 at 86 FR
34266 with a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA-Administered Disaster Case Management Intake Form.
    Type of information collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NW132.
    FEMA Forms: FF-104-FY-21-146 and FF-104-FY-21-147.
    Abstract: This collection tool will primarily be used as a guide to
support FEMA-administered Disaster Case Management (DCM) case managers
by outlining the allowable data elements they can collect from
survivors on behalf of FEMA. While there will be a paper collection
tool, the case managers will primarily be using the tool as a reference
of data elements they can collect, and using their own case management
database systems to guide the order in which the elements are
collected. The elements within the tool are used to assess, screen, and
refer disaster survivors to available resources that address their
specific disaster-related unmet needs. Case managers then take the
information from the intake form and manually upload the data into
their secured case management database.
    Prior to any data collection, survivors will complete and sign a
FEMA-administered DCM Consent Form, authorizing FEMA, or its agent, to
collect data from the survivor in order to effectively provide case
management services.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 75,000.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 75,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 48,000 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,746,240.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $51,640,374.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-25101 Filed 11-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38252-38253]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60386; File No. SR-OCC-2009-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Clearance and Settlement of Treasury Futures Contracts

July 24, 2009.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 1, 2009, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the proposal was
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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will establish parameters for OCC to clear
and settle futures contracts based on U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds
(``Treasury Futures'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC 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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to establish new
provisions to OCC's rules in order for OCC to provide clearance and
settlement services for Treasury Futures transactions that are proposed
to be traded by ELX Futures LP. (``ELX''), an electronic futures market
that was designated as a contract market by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'') on May 22, 2009.\4\ Under the terms of
its clearing agreement with ELX dated December 5, 2008,\5\ OCC will
operate as the exclusive provider of clearance and settlement services
through physical delivery for Treasury Futures and other futures,
futures options, or commodity options that may be traded on ELX. As
such, ELX will send OCC matched trade data so that OCC can margin the
contracts and inform ELX members their payment and securities delivery
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Commodity Futures Trading Commission Release No. 5662-09
(May 28, 2009).
    \5\ The clearing agreement is attached as Exhibit 5A to OCC's
rule filing with the Commission. OCC states that the clearing
agreement is generally similar to corresponding agreements between
OCC and other futures exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Delivery of Underlying Treasury Securities
    As detailed in proposed modifications to Chapter 13 of its Rules,
OCC clearing members may satisfy their delivery obligations with
respect to Treasury Futures by delivering different treasury securities
provided the securities meet certain specifications. Since there is not
an established delivery date to deliver the underlying treasury
securities, OCC proposes to permit a seller of Treasury Futures to
elect to deliver on any business day during the delivery month, which,
in the case of certain Treasury Futures, includes up to the third
business day of the following month.
    Delivery of the treasury securities underlying Treasury Futures
will be effected directly between OCC clearing members rather than
through the facilities of OCC. The delivery process will occur over a
period of three business days and will be initiated by the submission
of a delivery intent by the clearing member holding a short position in
the Treasury Futures. After a delivery intent is submitted to OCC, OCC
will assign the delivery intent to an open long position in Treasury
Futures beginning with long positions with the oldest trading date. On
the second business day of the delivery process, the delivering
clearing members will be

required to submit invoices identifying the specific treasury
securities to be delivered and the amounts the receiving clearing
members must pay in settlement of the actual deliveries. On the second
business day following the submission of a delivery intent, the
treasury securities will be delivered and payment will be made through
the correspondent banks of the delivering and receiving clearing
members.
2. Settlement Failure
    OCC is also proposing to add rules to Chapter 13 to address the
direct settlement between clearing members for the delivery of the
underlying treasury securities upon maturity of the Treasury Futures
and to address failure to complete settlement. Specifically, in the
event that either the delivering clearing member or the receiving
clearing member with respect to a physically-settled futures contract
believes that a failure to settle has occurred without proper cause,
such clearing member will need to notify OCC of such failure by a set
cut-off time. Then, OCC will determine whether delivery has in fact
failed and if necessary determine the damages.
    OCC's transactional guarantee will be limited to paying reasonable
damages as determined by OCC in accordance with Rule 1308B. Rule 1308B
provides that in the event of such a failure OCC will make payment to
the non-defaulting clearing member in an amount equal to the damages
incurred by the non-defaulting clearing member from such failure as
determined by OCC. Such damages would be charged by OCC to the
defaulting clearing member. OCC is proposing to add provisions to its
By-laws addressing inabilities to deliver underlying treasury
securities similar to the provisions of Articles XIII of the By-Laws
addressing the inability to delivery treasury securities upon the
exercise of options on treasury securities.
    OCC states that the proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\6\ because the changes are designed to permit OCC to perform clearing
services for products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC
without adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
or the protection of investors and the public interest. The changes
accomplish this purpose by applying substantially the same rules and
procedures to transactions in Treasury Futures as OCC applies to
transactions in security futures and securities options. The proposed
rule change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC including any
rules proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \8\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency
or for which it is responsible and does not significantly affect the
respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons
using the service. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-OCC-2009-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2009-13. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at OCC's principal office and on OCC's Web site
at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/
proposed_changes.jspU. 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-
OCC-2009-01 and should be submitted on or before August 21, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18279 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16173-16176]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-15-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Venice Extension
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, Notice of Public
Scoping Session, and Schedule for Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Venice Extension Project
(Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Pointe Coupee, Iberville,
Lafourche, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use
this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the
Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The schedule for
preparation of the EIS is discussed in the Schedule for Environmental
Review section of this notice.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and the EIS section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document, including
comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant
information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts
affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 15, 2022. Comments may be submitted in
written or oral form. Further details on how to submit comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain
authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain
cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing'';
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
15-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852; or
    (4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you
to attend one of the virtual public scoping sessions its staff will
conduct by telephone, scheduled as follows:

Date and Time

Tuesday, March 29, 2022, 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (EST), Call in number:
800-779-8625, Participant code: 3472916
Wednesday, March 30, 2022, 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (EST), Call in number:
800-779-8625, Participant code: 3472916

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be
considered in the environmental document. Individual oral comments will
be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter present on the
line. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of oral
comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted, and is in
response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
    There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when
the session opens. Each scoping session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You may call at any time after 5:00 p.m. at
which time you will be placed on mute and hold. Calls will be answered
in the order they are received. Once answered, you will have the
opportunity to provide your comment directly to a court reporter with
FERC staff or representative present on the line. A time limit of three
minutes will be implemented for each commentor.
    Transcripts of all comments received during the scoping sessions
will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see the last page
of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary).
    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided orally at a virtual scoping session.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project, the Project Purpose and Need, and
Expected Impacts

    Texas Eastern proposes to (i) construct, install, own, operate and
maintain an approximately 3.0-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline
segment on its Line 40 in Pointe Coupee Parish; (ii) abandon in place a
2.2-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter existing pipeline segment on Line 40 in
Pointe Coupee Parish; (iii) construct a new 31,900 horsepower (hp)
compressor station and metering and regulating facilities in Pointe
Coupee Parish; (iv) abandon in place the existing, inactive 19,800 hp
compressor unit at its White Castle Compressor Station in Iberville
Parish, and the existing, inactive 19,800 hp compressor unit at its
Larose Compressor Station in Lafourche Parish; (v) install one new
31,900 hp compressor unit and related appurtenances at both the White
Castle and Larose Compressor Stations; and (vi) upgrade a metering and
regulating facility on a platform in Plaquemines Parish.
    The Project would reverse natural gas flow on a portion of Texas
Eastern's Line 40 to provide firm natural gas transportation service
for up to 1,260,000 dekatherms per day on its existing Line 40 to an
interconnection with a proposed pipeline lateral, owned and operated by
Venture Global Gator Express, LLC, with ultimate delivery to Venture
Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC's liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal.
Texas Eastern states that the Project is needed to provide the
necessary natural gas pipeline infrastructure to ensure the firm
transportation of natural gas to the Plaquemines LNG terminal that
Venture Global Gator Express, LLC is seeking.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Based on the environmental information provided by Texas Eastern,
construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 285.5 acres
of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following
construction, Texas Eastern would maintain about 42.2 acres for
operation of the Project facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. About 56 percent of the proposed
pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-
way.
    Based on an initial review of Texas Eastern's proposal, Commission
staff have identified several expected impacts that deserve attention
in the EIS. The majority of the Project impacts would be within
waterbodies (with approximately 169.4 acres of potential impacts within
these systems), resulting in further impacts on fisheries and essential
fish habitat. Further, Project construction would impact about 28.6
acres of forested land/wildlife habitat and require 13.6 acres for
operation; multiple residences would be in close proximity to the
abandonment of the existing pipeline segment; and the Project would
increase air emissions.

The NEPA Process and the EIS

    The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed
Project under the relevant general resource areas:

 Geology and soils;
 water resources and wetlands;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 threatened and endangered species;
 cultural resources;
 land use;
 air quality and noise; and
 reliability and safety.

    Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help
Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a
significant effect on the human environment.
    The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public
comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received
during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be
available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
\2\ and the Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant
email notification when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Alternatives Under Consideration

    The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action.\3\ Alternatives currently under consideration include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 1508.1(z).

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

     The no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not
implemented;
     system alternatives, meaning using existing facilities to
meet the needs of the Project;
     pipeline route alternatives, meaning using alternate
pipeline routes that may avoid impacting specific resources or
residences; and
     compression drive alternatives, meaning using different
equipment to power the compressors, such as electric-driven units.
    With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments
regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action
or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on
reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and
pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and
economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

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

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

Schedule for Environmental Review

    On November 24, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of
Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted
other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to
complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the
request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This
notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for
completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in August 2022.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--February 17, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \5\--May 18, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Permits and Authorizations

    The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations
for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-
inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is
not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's
EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related
to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
under the Public Participation section of this notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                               Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...........  Section 404 of the Clean Water
                                          Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.........  Consultation under Section 7 of
                                          the Endangered Species Act
                                          (ESA); Migratory Bird Treaty
                                          Act; Bald and Golden Eagle
                                          Protection Act; and Wildlife
                                          Coordination Act.
U.S. Department of Commerce; National    Section 7 of the ESA; Marine
 Oceanic and Atmospheric                  Mammal Protection Act; Section
 Administration, National Marine          305 of the Magnuson-Stevens
 Fisheries Service.                       Act.
Louisiana Department of Environmental    Section 401 of the Clean Water
 Quality (LDEQ).                          Act, Water Quality
                                          Certification.
Louisiana Division of Historic           Section 106 of the National
 Preservation.                            Historic Preservation Act.
Louisiana Department of Natural          Coastal Use Permit; Coastal
 Resources, Office of Coastal             Zone Consistency Review. JPA
 Management.                              filed with the U.S. Army Corps
                                          of Engineers--New Orleans
                                          District.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American Tribes; and other interested parties.
This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the
Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors,
whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own
homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone
who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with
their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing
list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related
to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-15-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-15). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06018 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40899-40901]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0199]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Amelia River, Fernandina, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
for navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the VB-10,000 work
barge while transiting the Sector Jacksonville Captain of the Port
Zone. Once the VB-10,000 work barge is moored at the Nassau Terminal in
Fernandina Beach, FL, the safety zone will be reduced to a 100-yard
radius. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a barge
of this size and with restricted manuerverability. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Jacksonville.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 8, 2020
through July 31, 2020. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from July 3, 2020 through July 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0199 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Emily Sysko, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is inpracticable. Due to shifting
dates and delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coast Guard
did not received a specific date and time for the transit of the VB-
10,000 work barge.The barge is expected to arrive at Nassau Termainal
in Fernandina Beach, FL on July 3, 2020. It is impracticable to publish
an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone prior to the barge
getting underway and entering the COTP Jacksonville zone.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because action is needed to respond to
the potential safety and navigational hazards associated with a large
work barge transiting the channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has determined that
potential hazards associated with the VB-10,000 work barge will be a
safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the barge while
in transit and within a 100-yard radius of the barge while moored at
the Nassau Terminal in Fernandina Beach, FL. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while the barge is transiting through the
COTP Jacksonville Zone and moored at Nassau Terminal.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone around the VB-10,000 work
barge. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards
of the barge while in transit and all navigable waters within 100 yards
of the barge while moored at the Nassau Terminal in Fernandina Beach,
FL. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the barge is
present. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the time and
duration the VB-10,000 work barge will be in the Sector Jacksonville
Captain of the Port Zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit
around the 500 yard radius safety zone which will be reduced to a 100-
yard radius while the barge is moored at the Nassau Terminanl in
Fernandina Beach, FL. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the
rule would allow vessels unable to pass safely to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry within navigable waters outlined
in the Discussion of the Rule above. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Regulated Navigation Areas and
Limited Access Areas

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0199 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0199  Safety Zone; VB-10,000 work barge, Sector
Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, Fernandina Beach, FL.

    (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: All navigable waters
within a 500 yard radius around the VB-10,000 work barge during the
vessel's transit within the Sector Jacksonville Captain of the Port
Zone. While it is moored at Nassau Terminal, Fernandina Beach, FL, the
saftey zone will encompass navigable waters within a 100 yard radius.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and
Federal, State, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area
through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from July 3,
2020 through July 31, 2020, unless terminated sooner by the Sector
Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone.

    Dated: June 30, 2020.
M.C. Reed,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2020-14788 Filed 7-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49005-49008]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20184]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0696; Product Identifier 2019-NM-136-AD; Amendment
39-19730; AD 2019-18-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100,
-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program to remove text
that allows the size of the thrust reverser upper locking actuator lock
sensor target to be changed, and, for certain airplanes, performing
repetitive integrity tests of the thrust reverser upper locking
actuator. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that alteration
of thrust reverser upper locking actuators in accordance with certain
data in the Boeing aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) could delay or
prevent detection of the failure of the locking mechanism of a thrust
reverser upper locking actuator. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 3, 2019.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by November 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0696; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    In May 2019, Boeing informed the FAA that alteration of thrust
reverser upper locking actuators, in accordance with unapproved data in
the Boeing AMM, could cause a locking mechanism failure of a thrust
reverser upper locking actuator to remain undetected for thousands of
flights.
    Boeing informed the FAA of the risk that operators could use an
existing AMM procedure that was intended for use in rigging a newly
installed thrust reverser upper locking actuator to instead alter the
functioning of a worn upper locking actuator's lock indication. That
procedure removes material from the upper locking actuator's lock
sensor target until the upper locking actuator's unlocked indication
(the ``REVERSER'' light on the flight deck aft overhead panel, which is
illuminated when the upper locking actuator is unlocked or when other
system failures are detected) is no longer illuminated. However, that
procedure does not require a check to verify that the thrust reverser
upper locking actuator locking mechanism is operative or that the
unlocked indication functions normally after removal of the material.
As a result, it is possible that use of this procedure could prevent
actuator unlocked indications to the flight crew if the thrust reverser
upper locking actuator locking mechanism has already failed or
subsequently fails.
    An undetected unlocked thrust reverser upper locking actuator in
flight significantly increases the likelihood of an in-flight
deployment of the thrust reverser. In-flight thrust reverser deployment
in some phases of flight would likely result in loss of airplane
control.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program to remove certain text from all locations in the existing
maintenance and inspection program that instructs the maintainers to
remove material from or grind or trim the sensor target of the thrust
reverser upper locking actuator. For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
-900, and -900ER series (737 NG) airplanes, this AD also requires
repetitive integrity tests of the thrust reverser upper locking
actuator.
    The Model 737-8 and -9 (737 MAX) airplane fleet is a young fleet
and those airplanes have not been subjected to enough wear to warrant
the use by any operator of the sensor target trimming procedure that
leads to the upper locking actuator lock indication failure that may
exist on 737 NG airplanes. The FAA therefore has determined that the
integrity test is not necessary for the 737 MAX fleet.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The manufacturer is
currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, the

FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to
make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good
cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because alteration of thrust reverser upper locking actuators in
accordance with certain unapproved AMM data could cause a thrust
reverser upper locking actuator that is unlocked in flight to remain
undetected, which could significantly increase the likelihood of an in-
flight deployment of the thrust reverser and consequent loss of
airplane control. The compliance time for the required action is
shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for
publication of the final rule.
    Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views,
or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-
0696 and Product Identifier 2019-NM-136-AD at the beginning of your
comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final
rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle
ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3552; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2,149 airplanes 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrity test (2,039 airplanes).  8 work-hours x $85               $0  $680 per test cycle  $1,386,520 per test
                                    per hour = $680                                           cycle.
                                    per test cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes
1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that would be required based on the results of the
integrity test. The FAA 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actuator replacement..........................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $38,908         $39,588
                                                 $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-18-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19730; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0696; Product Identifier 2019-NM-136-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 3, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, excluding Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that alteration of
thrust reverser upper locking actuators in accordance with certain
data contained in the Boeing aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) could
delay or prevent detection of the failure of the locking mechanism
of a thrust reverser upper locking actuator. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the potential for an undetected unlocked condition of
the thrust reverser upper locking actuator locking mechanism in
flight, which could significantly increase the likelihood of an in-
flight deployment of the thrust reverser and consequent loss of
airplane control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance/Inspection Program Revision

    For all airplanes: Within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, by removing any steps that change the size of the thrust
reverser upper locking actuator lock sensor target.

(h) Prohibition From Altering Locking Actuator Target

    For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may alter the thrust reverser upper locking actuator lock
sensor target by grinding or trimming or otherwise removing material
from the lock sensor target.

(i) Actuator Integrity Test

    For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
conduct an integrity test of the thrust reverser upper locking
actuator on all 4 locking actuators on the airplane. The integrity
test must include at least the steps specified in figure 1 to
paragraphs (i) and (k) of this AD. The integrity test is not
required to be completed for all 4 actuators in one maintenance
visit, provided all 4 actuators are tested within the compliance
times specified in this paragraph. During the test, a slight
movement from fully stowed on the lower portion of the thrust
reverser is acceptable due to the wind up in the flexible shafts
between the synchronization lock and the upper actuator lock.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE19.000

    Note 1 to paragraph (i):  Additional guidance for the integrity
test can be found in Boeing 737 AMM Task 78-31-03.

(j) Repetitive Test Interval

    After the initial integrity test required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750
flight hours.

(k) Corrective Action for Failed Integrity Test

    If, during any integrity test required by paragraph (i) or (j)
of this AD, the movement of the thrust reverser exceeds the
acceptable ``slight movement'' described in paragraph (i) of this
AD, replace the locking actuator before further flight.

(l) Parts Installation Prohibition

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, excluding
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes:
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a thrust
reverser upper locking actuator part number 315A2801-1, -2, -3, -4,
or -5.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(n) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3552; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 11, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-20184 Filed 9-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P