structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TPH that holds 1 EAP, no Bandwidth Packets and 1 CMI login
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  30 orders/sec.....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $2,350............  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $78.33/order/sec..  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TPH that holds 1 EAP, 4 Bandwidth Packets and 15 CMI logins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $11,250 ([email protected])..  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $6,400 ([email protected]$1,600).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  150 orders/sec....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $19,250...........  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $128.33/order/sec.  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a new Clearing TPH
Permit is reasonable because it offers TPHs that only clear
transactions of TPHs a discount. Particularly, Clearing TPHs that also
submit orders electronically to the Exchange would purchase the
proposed EAP at $3,000 per permit. The Exchange believe it's reasonable
to provide a discount to Clearing TPHs that only clear transactions and
do not otherwise submit electronic orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that another exchange similarly charges a separate fee for
clearing firms.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General
Options and Trading Permit (OTP) Fees and NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule, Section III. Monthly ATP Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure for on-floor
Market-Makers is reasonable as the fees are in line with those offered
at other Exchanges.\91\ The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for
MM Floor Permits as compared to MM EAPs is reasonable because it is
only modestly higher than MM EAPs and Floor MMs don't have other costs
that MM EAP holders have, such as MM EAP Appointment fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses $6,000 per permit for Floor Specialists and Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed fees for Floor Broker Permits
are reasonable because the fees are similar to, and in some cases lower
than, the fees the Exchange currently assesses for such permits.
Specifically, based on the number of Trading Permits TPHs held upon
migration, 60% of TPHs that hold Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay
lower Trading Permit fees. Particularly, any Floor Broker holding ten
or less Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay lower fees under the
proposed tiers as compared to what they pay today. While the remaining
40% of TPHs holding Floor Broker Trading Permits (who each hold between
12-21 Floor Broker Trading Permits) will pay higher fees, the Exchange
notes the monthly increase is de minimis, ranging from an increase of
0.6%-2.72%.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The Floor Brokers whose fees are increasing have each
committed to a minimum number of permits and therefore currently
receive the rates set forth in the current Floor Broker TP Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed ADV Discount is reasonable
because it provides an opportunity for Floor Brokers to pay lower FB
Trading Permit fees, similar to the current rebate program offered to
Floor Brokers. The Exchange notes that while the new ADV Discount
program includes only customer volume (``C'' origin code) as compared
to Customer and Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional, the
amount of Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional volume was de
minimis and the Exchange does not believe the absence of such volume
will have a significant impact.\93\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that while the ADV requirements under the proposed ADV Discount program
are higher than are required under the current rebate program, the
proposed ADV Discount counts volume from all products towards the
thresholds as compared to the current rebate program which excludes
volume from Underlying Symbol List A (except RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM),
DJX, XSP, and subcabinet trades. Moreover, the ADV Discount is designed
to encourage the execution of orders in all classes via open outcry,
which may increase volume, which would benefit all market participants
(including Floor Brokers who do not hit the ADV thresholds) trading via
open outcry (and indeed, this increased volume could make it possible
for some Floor Brokers to hit the ADV thresholds). The Exchange
believes the proposed discounts are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Floor Brokers are eligible. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which
TPHs will satisfy the various thresholds under the ADV Discount, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 3 Floor Brokers to receive a rebate
under the program. In December 2019, 2 Floor Brokers received a rebate
under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Furthermore, post-migration the Exchange will not have
Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed MM EAP Appointment fees are
reasonable in light of the Exchange's elimination of appointment costs
tied to Trading Permits. Other exchanges also offer a similar structure
with respect to fees for appointment classes.\94\ Additionally, the
proposed MM EAP Appointment fee structure results in approximately 36%
electronic MMs

paying lower fees for trading permit and appointment costs. For
example, in order to have the ability to make electronic markets in
every class on the Exchange, a Market-Maker would need 1 Market-Maker
Trading Permit and 37 Appointment Units post-migration. Under, the
current pricing structure, in order for a Market-Maker to quote the
entire universe of available classes, a Market-Maker would need 33
Appointment Credits, thus necessitating 33 Market-Maker Trading
Permits. With respect to fees for Trading Permits and Appointment Unit
Fees, under the proposed pricing structure, the cost for a TPH wishing
to quote the entire universe of available classes is approximately 29%
less (if they are not eligible for the MM TP Sliding Scale) or
approximately 2% less (if they are eligible for the MM TP Sliding
Scale). To further demonstrate the potential cost savings/value added,
the Exchange is providing the following examples comparing current
Market-Maker connectivity and access fees to projected connectivity and
access fees for different scenarios. The Exchange notes that the below
examples not only compare Trading Permit and Appointment Unit costs,
but also the cost incurred for logical connectivity and bandwidth.
Particularly, the first example demonstrates the total minimum cost
that would be incurred today in order for a Market-Maker to have the
same amount of capacity as a Market-Maker post-migration that would
have only 1 MM EAP and 1 Logical Port (i.e., 15,000 quotes/3 sec). The
Exchange is also providing examples that demonstrate the costs of (i) a
Market-Maker with small capacity needs and appointment unit of 1.0 and
(ii) a Market-Maker with large capacity needs and appointment cost/unit
of 30.0:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8. Membership Fees, B, Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees and C. Remote Market Maker Organization
(RMO) Fee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Market-Maker that needs capacity of 15,000/quotes/3 seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750 \95\.........  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $5,500 ([email protected]$2,750).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  15,000 quotes/3     15,000 quotes/3
                                   sec.                sec.
Total Cost......................  $11,250...........  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.75/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Market Maker that needs capacity of no more than 5,000 quotes/3 secs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  5,000 quotes/3 sec  15,000 quotes/3
                                                       sec.
Total Cost......................  $5,750............  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $1.15/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Market-Maker that needs 30 Appointment Units and capacity of 300,000
                              quotes/3 sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permits/MM EAP...............  $105,000 (30 MM     $5,000.
                                   Permits assumes
                                   eligible for MM
                                   TP Sliding Scale)
                                   \96\.
Appointment Units Cost..........  N/A (30             $95,500 (30
                                   appointment         appointment
                                   costs).             units).
CMI Logins/BOE Bulk Port........  $3,000 ([email protected]$750)     $3,000 (2 BOE
                                   \97\.               [email protected]$1,500).
Bandwidth Packets...............  $82,500([email protected]$2750).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  300,000 quotes/3    * 450,000 quotes/3
                                   sec.                sec.
Total Cost......................  $190,500..........  $103,500.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.63/quotes/3 sec  $0.23/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possible performance degradation at 15,000 messages per second.

    The Exchange believes its proposal to provide separate fees for
Tier Appointments for MM EAPs and MM Floor Permits as the Exchange will
be issuing separate Trading Permits for on-floor and off-floor market
making as discussed above. The proposal to eliminate the volume
threshold for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as
no TPHs in the past several months have electronically traded more than
1 SPX contract or less than 100 SPX contracts per month and therefore
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change, and because it
aligns the electronic SPX Tier Appointment with the floor SPX Tier
Appointment, which has no volume threshold. The Exchange believes the
proposal to increase the electronic volume thresholds for VIX and RUT
are reasonable as those that do not regularly trade VIX or RUT in open-
outcry will continue to not be assessed the fee. In fact, any TPH that
executes more than 100 contracts but less than 1,000 in the respective
classes will no longer have to pay the proposed Tier Appointment fee.
As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the amounts
assessed for each Tier Appointment Fee. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The maximum quoting bandwidth that may be applied to a
single Login Id is 80,000 quotes/3 sec.
    \96\ For simplicity of the comparison, this assumes no
appointments in SPX, VIX, RUT, XEO or OEX (which are not included in
the TP Sliding Scale).
    \97\ Given the bandwidth limit per Login Id of 80,000 quotes/3
sec, example assumes Market-Maker purchases minimum amount of Login
IDs to accommodate 300,000 quotes/3 sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Trading
Permit Holder Regulatory fee because TPHs will not pay this fee and
because the Exchange is restructuring its Trading Permit structure. The
Exchange notes that although it will less closely be covering the costs
of regulating all TPHs and performing its regulatory responsibilities,
it still has sufficient funds to do so. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes corresponding changes to eliminate obsolete
language in connection with the proposed changes described above and to
relocate and reorganize its fees in connection with the proposed
changes maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviate potential
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As stated above, the Exchange does not believe
its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants. For
example, market participants with modest capacity needs can buy the
less expensive 1 Gb Physical Port and utilize only one Logical Port.
Moreover, the pricing for 1 Gb Physical Ports and FIX/BOE Logical Ports
are no different than are assessed today (i.e., $1,500 and $750 per
port, respectively), yet the capacity and access associated with each
is greatly increasing. While pricing may be increased for larger
capacity physical and logical ports, such options provide far more
capacity and are purchased by those that consume more resources from
the network. Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees do not favor
certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose
a burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants--lowest
bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth
consumption translates to higher costs to the Exchange.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed in the Statutory Basis section above, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (or purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of TPHs at Cboe and
shown by the fact that there are varying number of members across each
of Cboe's Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, and its ability to price access and
connectivity is constrained by competition among exchanges and third
parties. As discussed, there are other options markets of which market
participants may connect to trade options. There is also a possible
range of alternative strategies, including routing to the exchange
through another participant or market center or taking the exchange's
data indirectly. For example, there are 15 other U.S. options
exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline
in order to compete for market participants. In this competitive
environment, market participants are free to choose which competing
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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) of the Act \98\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \99\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \99\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-048. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-048, and should be submitted
on or before June 26, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12165 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 48658]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1102-000.
    Applicants: MOGAS PIPELINE LLC.
    Description: Annual Report on Revenue from Penalties Subject to
Crediting of MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220729-5395.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1105-000.
    Applicants: Anadarko US Offshore LLC, Murphy Exploration &
Production Company--USA, Eni Petroleum US LLC, INPEX Americas, Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Capacity
Release Regulations, et al. of Anadarko US Offshore LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220729-5398.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1106-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: MAD Service Charge and Action
Alert Penalty Filing to be effective 10/1/2022,
    Filed Date: 8/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220803-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1107-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (SoCal August 2022) to be effective 8/3/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/3/22.
    Accession Number: 20220803-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-993-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Report Filing: Cove Point--2022 Report of Operational
Sales and Purchases of Gas to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220729-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/22.

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

    Dated: August 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17149 Filed 8-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70677-70678]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24782]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9954-11-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement
agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community
In-Power and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade,
and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy (``Petitioners''), in the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Air Alliance
Houston, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 15-1210. On July 10, 2015, Petitioners
filed a petition for review challenging a final action issued by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') entitled ``New
and Revised Emission Factors for Flares and Other Refinery Process
Units and Determination for No Changes to VOC Emission Factors for
Tanks and Wastewater Treatment Systems.'' 80 FR 26925 (May 11, 2015)
(``Emission Factor Action''). Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, if EPA performs specified actions by December 16,
2016, the Petitioners will dismiss their lawsuit.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by November 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0582, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On May 1, 2013, Petitioners filed a lawsuit against EPA alleging
that the EPA had failed to review and, if necessary, revise emissions
factors at least once every three years as required in CAA section 130.
Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-00621-KBJ
(D.D.C.). In that lawsuit, the Petitioners sought to compel EPA to
review the volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions factors for
industrial flares (``flares''), liquid storage tanks (``tanks''), and
wastewater collection, treatment and storage systems (``wastewater
treatment systems''), and, if necessary, revise those emission factors.
EPA entered into a consent decree with the Petitioners to settle that
lawsuit. Under the terms of the consent decree, on April 20, 2015, EPA
finalized a new VOC emissions factor for flares and finalized a
determination that it was not necessary to revise the VOC emissions
factors for tanks and wastewater treatment systems, and posted these
actions on its AP-42 Web site (``the Emission Factor Action''). AP-42
is a guidance document that contains emissions factors and process
information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.
    On July 10, 2015, the Petitioners filed a petition for review in
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking judicial review of EPA's
Emission Factor Action posted on its Web site on April 20, 2015, which
was taken in response to the consent decree described above.
Petitioners have challenged the Emission Factor Action by raising the
following five issues: (1) The total hydrocarbon (``THC'') emissions
factor for flares used in Section 13.5 of EPA's official Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors known as ``AP-42''; (2) the minimum heat
value of the gas in the combustion zone of the flare test data used to
develop the VOC emissions factors in Section 13.5 of AP-42; (3) the
average destruction efficiency of the flare test data used to develop
the VOC emissions factor in Section 13.5 of AP-42; (4) the molecular
weights used in the calculation of the VOC emissions factor in Section
13.5 of AP-42; and (5) the source classification codes (``SCCs'')
associated with the flare emissions factors in Section 13.5 of AP-42.
    The proposed settlement agreement would settle Petitioners' lawsuit
in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging,
under CAA section 307(b)(1), the Emission Factor Action. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement agreement, if EPA performs specified
actions by December 16, 2016, the Petitioners will dismiss their
lawsuit. Consistent with EPA practice and the terms of the settlement
agreement, EPA will post any actions it takes on its AP-42 Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors. The proposed settlement agreement
also provides for each party to bear its own litigation costs.

    For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were 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
settlement agreement 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 the agreement should
be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OGC-2016-0582 contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement.
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
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to 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 www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, 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 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
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: October 6, 2016.
Gautam Srinivasan,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-24782 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38995-38998]
[DOCID:fr05au09-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0682; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-200-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. The
existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking, and
repair as necessary, of lower lobe body frames (sections 42 and 46) of
the fuselage. The existing AD also provides for optional modification
of the frames, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This
proposed AD would require additional repetitive inspections for
cracking of certain fuselage frames, and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD would also revise the AD applicability.
This proposed AD results from a new report of a crack found in a body
frame with a tapered side guide bracket at fuselage station 1800,
located on the left side between stringers 39 and 40; the frame was
severed. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct the loss of
structural integrity of the fuselage, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 21,
2009.

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0682;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-200-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 4, 1986, we issued AD 86-18-01, amendment 39-5390 (51 FR
28691, August 11, 1986), for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That
AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking, and repair as
necessary, of lower lobe body frames (sections 42 and 46) of the
fuselage. That AD also provides for optional modification of the
frames, which terminates the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted
from a finding of numerous body frame cracks in the lower lobe of the
fuselage. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the structure, which
could lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD was Issued

    Since we issued AD 86-18-01, we received a report of a crack found
in a body frame with a tapered side guide bracket at fuselage station
1800. The body frame was located on the left side between stringers 39
and 40 and was severed. Investigation revealed that frames with tapered
side guide brackets and frames with the optional terminating action
incorporated are also susceptible to cracking. As a result, we have
determined that additional inspections are necessary, as specified in
the service information described below. In addition, we have
determined that it is necessary to revise the AD applicability to
include the affected frames on certain other airplanes, as specified in
the service information described below.

Other Related Rulemaking

    On February 16, 2006, we issued AD 2006-05-02, amendment 39-14499
(71 FR 10605, March 2, 2006), for all Boeing Model 747-200F, 747-200C,
747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage internal
structure, and repair if necessary. That AD resulted from fatigue tests
and analysis that identified areas of the fuselage where fatigue cracks
can occur. We issued that AD to prevent loss of the structural
integrity of the fuselage, which could result in rapid depressurization
of the airplane.
    On September 26, 2005, we issued AD 2005-20-30, amendment 39-14327
(70 FR 59252, October 12, 2005), for certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series
airplanes. That AD supersedes an existing AD and requires repetitive
inspections to detect cracks in various areas of the fuselage internal
structure, and repair if necessary. That AD also requires repetitive
inspections of additional areas of the fuselage internal structure, and
related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. That AD also
removes certain requirements from the existing AD. That AD resulted
from fatigue testing of the fuselage structure of a Boeing Model 747SR
series airplane. We issued that AD to prevent the loss of the
structural integrity of the fuselage, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
    The inspections specified in this proposed AD are not necessary on
airplanes on which the repetitive inspections have been done in
accordance with AD 2005-20-30 and AD 2006-05-02.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated
September 25, 2008. The service bulletin describes procedures for a
detailed inspection for cracking of the inner chord and vertical web of
the left and right side body frames from fuselage stations 1500 to
1800, stringers 39 to 40; and corrective actions if necessary. The
corrective action is repairing any crack found.
    For airplanes that have accumulated 22,000 total flight cycles or
more, the service bulletin specifies that no work is necessary. Those
airplanes are being inspected per the requirements of AD 2005-20-30 or
AD 2006-05-02, as applicable.
    For all other airplanes, the compliance time for the detailed
inspection for cracking of the inner chord and vertical web is before
the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or 10,000 flight cycles
after installation of a tapered strap, or within a specified grace
period. The grace period is either 2,000 flight cycles after the date
on the service bulletin or 3,000 flight cycles after the most recent
inspection, depending on the airplane configuration and inspection
status.
    The service bulletin specifies repeating the inspection every 3,000
flight cycles until the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles.
    The service bulletin also includes doing a detailed inspection for
cracks in any existing repair and the adjacent structure, and
corrective actions if necessary. The service bulletin also provides for
optional installation of a tapered strap if no crack is found, which
extends the repetitive inspection interval.
    The service bulletin specifies doing the detailed inspection of the
repair within 3,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight cycles after the
repair was done, depending on whether a tapered strap is installed. The
service bulletin also specifies repeating the inspection every 3,000
flight cycles until the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles.

    The service bulletin also recommends as a corrective action
contacting Boeing before further flight for repair instructions if
cracking is found on the installed repair, tapered strap, or adjacent
structure.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on airplanes of the same
type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would
supersede AD 86-18-01 and would retain the requirements of the existing
AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated September
25, 2008, described previously.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 86-18-01.
Since AD 86-18-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Corresponding requirement in
       Requirement in AD  86-18-01               this proposed  AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph A.............................  Paragraph (g).
Paragraph B.............................  Paragraph (h).
Paragraph C.............................  Paragraph (i).
Paragraph D.............................  Paragraph (j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 237 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                 Average                            U.S.-
             Action                Work hours   labor rate   Cost per airplane    registered      Fleet cost
                                                 per hour                         airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (required by AD 86-           370          $80  $29,600, per                 112  $3,315,200, per
 18-01).                                                     inspection cycle.                 inspection cycle.
Additional inspections (new                 6           80  $480, per                     87  $41,760, per
 proposed action).                                           inspection cycle.                 inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-5390 (51 FR
28691, August 11, 1986), and adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0682; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
200-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September
21, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 86-18-01.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated September 25, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of a crack found in a body
frame with a tapered side guide bracket at fuselage station 1800,
located on the left side between stringers 39 and 40; the frame was
severed. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct the loss of structural integrity of the fuselage,
which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 86-18-01, with Revised Service
Information

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) For airplanes listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2237, Revision 1, dated March 28, 1986: Perform a detailed visual
inspection for frame cracking from fuselage section 540 to 760, and
1820 to 1900, stringers 35 left to 42 left, in accordance with
Section III of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2237, Revision
1, dated March 28, 1986. Do the inspection at the time specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. If
any crack is found, repair in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (p) of this AD. Repeat the inspection at intervals not
to exceed 3,000 landings until the terminating action specified in
paragraph (g)(4) or (k) of this AD is performed.
    (1) Within 300 landings for airplanes that have accumulated more
than 12,000 landings on September 17, 1986 (the effective date of AD
86-18-01, amendment 39-5390).
    (2) Within 800 landings for airplanes that have accumulated
10,000 to 12,000 landings on September 17, 1986.
    (3) Within 800 landings or prior to the accumulation of 10,000
landings, whichever occurs later, for airplanes that have
accumulated less than 10,000 landings on September 17, 1986.
    (4) Modification of the frames before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2237,
Revision 1, dated March 28, 1986, constitutes terminating action for
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (h) For airplanes listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2259, Revision 1, dated April 18, 1986: Perform a visual
inspection of cargo side guide support brackets from fuselage
station 1500 to 1800, right and left hand side, for a proper
machined taper in accordance with Section III of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2259, Revision 1, dated April 18, 1986. Do
the inspection at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or
(h)(3) of this AD, as applicable. If any cargo side guide support
bracket is improperly tapered, perform a detailed visual inspection
of the frame area adjacent to the untapered bracket for cracking in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2259, Revision
1, dated April 18, 1986. If any crack is found, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this
AD. Repeat the detailed visual inspection at intervals not to exceed
3,000 landings until the terminating action specified in paragraph
(h)(4) of this AD is performed. Accomplishment of the inspections
required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the inspections
required by this paragraph.
    (1) Within 300 landings for airplanes that have accumulated more
than 12,000 landings on September 17, 1986 (the effective date of AD
86-18-01, amendment 39-5390).
    (2) Within 800 landings for airplanes that have accumulated
10,000 to 12,000 landings on September 17, 1986.
    (3) Within 800 landings or prior to the accumulation of 10,000
landings, whichever occurs later, for airplanes that have
accumulated less than 10,000 landings on September 17, 1986.
    (4) Installation of a tapered strap adjacent to the affected
brackets before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2259, Revision 1, dated April
18, 1986, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (i) For Boeing Model 747SR airplanes only, based on continued
mixed operation of cabin pressure differentials, the initial
inspection thresholds and reinspection intervals specified in AD 86-
18-01 may be multiplied by a 1.2 adjustment factor. This provision
is not applicable to paragraphs (k), (m), and (n) of this AD.
    (j) For the purposes of complying with AD 86-18-01, the number
of landings may be determined to equal the number of pressurization
cycles where the cabin pressure differential was greater than 2.0
pounds per square inch. This provision is not applicable to
paragraphs (k), (m), and (n) of this AD.

New Requirements of this AD

Repetitive Inspections

    (k) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2749, dated September 25, 2008, that have accumulated 22,000
or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do
initial and repetitive detailed inspections for frame cracking from
fuselage body stations 1500 to 1800, stringers 39 to 40, by doing
all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated September 25, 2008,
except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Do the inspections
and corrective actions at the times specified in paragraph 1.E. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated September 25, 2008,
except as required by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the inspections required by this paragraph
terminates the inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures

    (l) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated September
25, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this
AD.
    (m) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated
September 25, 2008, specifies a compliance time after the date of
the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (n) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2749, dated
September 25, 2008, specifies a compliance time related to
accomplishing an action ``as given in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2259,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the applicable compliance time required by
paragraph (h) of this AD.

Terminating Action

    (o) Accomplishing the repetitive frame inspections required by
AD 2006-05-02, amendment 39-14499, or AD 2005-20-30, amendment 39-
14327, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g), (h),
and (k) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590; or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with paragraph (A)
of AD 86-18-01, are approved as alternative methods of compliance
with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with paragraph (B)
of AD 86-18-01, are approved as alternative methods of compliance
with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (5) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 24, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-18641 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43192-43193]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17336]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1909-000.
    Applicants: Maine Public Service Company.
    Description: MPS Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130709-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1923-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-10-13 MISO-SERTP Order 1000 Interregional to be
effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1924-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM TOs OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing re MISO-
PJM JOA to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1926-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM TOs Cost Allocation Revisions to NYISO-PJM JOA
Order 1000 Compliance to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1927-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Transmission Owners file PJM OATT Revisions re
PJM-SERTP Cost Allocation to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1928-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing--
Carolinas to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1930-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1935-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Order 1000 Interregional filing to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1936-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM OATT Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance
Filing re OA Schedule 6 & 6A to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1937-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance Joint
Operating Agreement with MISO to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1938-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-10-13 MISO-SPP Order 1000 Interregional to be
effective 3/30/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1939-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Order 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1940-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1941-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing--

FILING SUMBITTED UNDER PROTEST to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1942-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective
1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1943-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-10-13 MISO-PJM Order 1000 Interregional to be
effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1944-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM OATT Order 1000 Interregional Compliance filing re
the PJM-MISO JOA to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1945-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-10-13 Order 1000 Interregional Att FF to be
effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1946-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective
7/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1947-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing re NYISO-PJM
JOA to be effective 7/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1955-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. submits OATT Order No. 1000
Interregional Coordination Compliance Filing and Limited Waiver
Request.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1956-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits Order No. 1000 Interregional
Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130710-5264.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1957-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Northeastern ISO/RTO Planning Coordination Protocol
Agreement to be effective 7/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1960-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Interregional Coordination and Cost Allocation Order
1000 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1962-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 07-11-2013 SA 6502 Ameren-MISO SSR
Agreement to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1963-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 07-11-2013 Schedule 43C Ameren
Edwards to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130711-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/13.

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

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17336 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3431-3432]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0205; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-17]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Walden, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Walden-
Jackson County Airport, Walden CO. Additional controlled airspace is
necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV)
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) at Walden-Jackson County Airport, Walden, CO. The FAA is
proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at Walden-Jackson County Airport, Walden, CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
0205; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-17, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2007-0205 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-17) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-0205 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-17''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at
Walden-Jackson County Airport, Walden, CO. Controlled airspace is
necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAP at
Walden-Jackson County Airport, Walden, CO. This action would enhance
the safety and management of aircraft operations at Walden-Jackson
County Airport, Walden, CO.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Walden-Jackson
County Airport, Walden, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO, E5 Walden, CO [New]

Walden-Jackson County Airport, CO
    (Lat. 40[deg]45'0'' N., long. 106[deg]16'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5-mile radius of Walden-Jackson County Airport, and within
4 miles each side of the 342[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 5-mile radius to V524 northwest of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 3, 2008.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E8-844 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29291-29292]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-133-000.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC,
Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Bishop Hill
Interconnection LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand
Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV
LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot
County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith
Gap Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind
Energy III LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony
Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC,
Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Grand
Ridge Energy II LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech
Ridge Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-348-005; ER14-2102-001; ER15-1378-001.
    Applicants: Mercuria Energy America, Inc., Mercuria Commodities
Canada Corporation, Danskammer Energy, LLC.
    Description: Updated Triennial Market Analysis for the Northeast
Region of the Mercuria Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-351-002; ER17-354-002.
    Applicants: American Falls Solar, LLC, American Falls Solar II,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of American Falls Solar,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1512-000.
    Applicants: CinCap V, LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information/Request of CinCap V, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1881-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: True-Up Amendment SGIAs
Agincourt Solar Project & Marathon Project to be effective 8/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1882-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-22_SA 2915
Termination of Otter Tail-Minnkota FCA (Warsaw Substation) to be
effective 9/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1883-000.
    Applicants: Mineral Point Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Mineral Point Energy LLC MBR
Filing to be effective 8/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1884-000.
    Applicants: Wrighter Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Wrighter Energy LLC MBR
Filing to be effective 8/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1885-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Transmission Exchange
Agreement FERC Electric RS No. 471, as supplemented, of Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13523 Filed 6-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P