[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53442-53445]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0913; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspections for scribe lines
in the fuselage skin at lap joints, the splice strap at certain butt
joints, the skin or doubler at certain approved repair doublers, and
the skin at decal locations; and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of scribe
line damage found adjacent to the skin lap joints, decals, and wing-to-
body fairings. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct scribe
lines, which can develop into fatigue cracks in the skin. Undetected
fatigue cracks can grow and cause sudden decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 3,
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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; 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-2009-0913;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-101-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

    We have received reports indicating that scribe lines have been
found by multiple operators on Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
and -900 series airplanes. The scribe lines appear to have been made on
the skin when sealant was removed as part of preparing the airplane for
repainting. One Model 737-700 operator reported scribe lines found
around the wing-to-body fairing between stringer 26L and stringer 25R
at station (STA) 727D to STA 727E. A second Model 737-700 operator
reported six vertical scribe lines up to 42 inches long on the upper
aft fuselage between stringer 5R and stringer 9R at STA 847 to STA 887.
Another 737-700 operator reported scribe lines along stringer 24L and
stringer 24R between STA 178 to STA 500B. The depth of the scribe lines
ranged from 0.001 inch to 0.004 inch. The airplanes had accumulated
between 595 and 17,571 total flight cycles. No cracks as a result of
scribe lines found on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900
airplanes have been reported to Boeing.

Related ADs

    This proposed AD is similar to two existing ADs. AD 2006-07-12,
amendment 39-14539 (71 FR 16211, March 31, 2006), applies to Boeing
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD
2007-19-07, amendment 39-15198 (72 FR 60244, October 24, 2007), applies
to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. Those ADs
require inspections to detect scribe lines in the fuselage skin at
certain lap joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, and other
areas; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Those
actions resulted from reports of fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the
skin lap joints on airplanes that had scribe lines.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated
January 14, 2009. That service bulletin describes procedures for
inspecting for scribe lines in the fuselage skin at lap joints, the
splice strap at certain butt joints, the skin or doubler at certain
approved repair doublers, and the skin at decal locations. That service
bulletin specifies removing paint and sealant from affected areas
before the initial inspection. The service bulletin specifies that the
compliance time for the inspections ranges between before accumulating
14,000 total flight cycles plus the first scribe line opportunity, and
75,000 total flight cycles, depending on the inspection location, or
within 4,000 flight cycles after the date the service bulletin was
issued (whichever occurs later).
    That service bulletin specifies related investigative and
corrective actions. The related investigative actions include
performing repetitive detailed, high frequency eddy current,
ultrasonic, and/or ultrasonic phased array inspections of the scribe
lines to detect cracks. The repetitive inspection interval ranges
between 1,000 and 10,000 flight cycles, depending on the condition
found. The corrective actions include repairing scribe lines and
cracks. The service bulletin specifies to repair cracks before further
flight.
    That service bulletin also specifies repairing scribe lines before
further flight, except when a limited return to service (LRTS) program
for qualifying scribe lines would allow return to service for a limited
period before scribe lines are repaired. The LRTS program includes
repetitive inspections to detect cracks where scribe lines are found.
To qualify for an LRTS program, scribe lines must meet certain criteria
based on their depth and location. That service bulletin specifies
final repair by using the structural repair manual or contacting Boeing
for instructions, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive
inspections of the LRTS program. The repetitive intervals for the LRTS
program range from 2,500 flight cycles to 10,000 flight cycles after
the scribe line is found, depending on the inspection location.
    That service bulletin notes that certain inspections would not be
necessary under the following conditions:
     The airplane has never been stripped or repainted, or the
airplane was stripped or repainted after July 1, 2007.
     The airplane has never had decals installed, or decals
were installed after July 1, 2007.
     For each repair, the airplane has never been stripped or
repainted since the repair was installed or the repair was installed
after July 1, 2007.
     The area under the wing-to-body fairings has never been
stripped or repainted or the airplane was stripped or repainted after
July 1, 2007.
     No sealant has been removed except in accordance with the
specified sealant removal processes given in Appendix A of the service
bulletin.
    That service bulletin specifies submitting inspection results to
Boeing. The service bulletin also provides procedures for addressing
scribe lines detected before the initial inspection threshold.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.'' The
proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results to
Boeing.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    Where the service bulletin specifies contacting the manufacturer
for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 782 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                                Table--Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                      Average                                                                        U.S.-
                Action                  Work hours   labor rate     Parts                      Cost per product                    registered                      Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                                                                     airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...........................           53          $80           $0  $4,240 per inspection cycle.......................          782  $3,315,680 per 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 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 this 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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 adding the following new AD:

    Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0913; Directorate Identifier 2009-
NM-101-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated
January 14, 2009.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of scribe line damage found
adjacent to the skin lap joints, decals, and wing-to-body fairings.
The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and
correct scribe lines, which can develop into fatigue cracks in the
skin. Undetected fatigue cracks can grow and cause sudden
decompression 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.

Inspection

    (g) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated
January 14, 2009 (``the service bulletin''), except as provided in
paragraph (h) of this AD, do detailed external inspections for
scribe lines in the fuselage skin at lap joints, the splice strap at
certain butt joints, the skin or doubler at certain approved repair
doublers, and the skin at decals; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    Note 1:  The inspection exceptions described in subparagraphs
1.a. through 1.e. in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated January 14, 2009, apply to this
AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (h) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated
January 14, 2009, specifies a compliance time after the date on the
service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1289, dated
January 14, 2009, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action, accomplish applicable actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

Report

    (j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive
and negative) of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this
AD. You may use Appendix B of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1289, dated January 14, 2009. Send the report to Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
The report must contain, at a minimum, the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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:
Wayne Lockett, 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) 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 October 5, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24986 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15499]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

Safety and Health Regulations for Construction

CFR Correction

0
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926, revised as
of July 1, 2017, on page 88, in Sec.  1926.60, remove paragraph
(o)(8)(ii).

[FR Doc. 2018-07530 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63615-63617]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-529-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Connecticut
Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, Notice
of Public Scoping Meetings, and Notice of Environmental Site Reviews

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Connecticut Expansion Project
(Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Albany County,
New York; Berkshire and Hampden Counties, Massachusetts; and Hartford
County, Connecticut. The Commission will use the EA in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on November 10, 2014.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of
the FERC public scoping meetings scheduled for the Project as follows:

                      FERC Public Scoping Meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Wednesday, October     Thursday, October
  Tuesday, October 28, 2014         29, 2014              30, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.       7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.   7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Granby Community         Sandisfield Art       Town Hall
 Center, 20 Center Street,     Center, 5             Auditorium, 445
 East Granby, CT 06026.        Hammertown Road,      Delaware Avenue,
                               Sandisfield, MA       Delmar, NY 12054.
                               01255.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public scoping meetings are designed to provide you with more
detailed information and another opportunity to offer your comments on
the proposed Project. Tennessee representatives will be present one
hour before each meeting with Project maps and will be available to
answer questions. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to
attend the meetings and to present comments on the issues they believe
should be addressed in the EA. A transcript of each meeting will be
made so that your comments will be accurately recorded.
    On October 28, 29, and 30, 2014, the Commission staff will also
conduct an onsite environmental review of the proposed locations for
Tennessee's Project. The onsite review will commence at the meeting
locations identified below and will proceed by vehicle and on foot to
view the proposed pipeline routes from public access points and
Tennessee's existing pipeline right-of-way. Each site review will
require about three hours to complete. Any interested parties planning
to attend must provide their own transportation and should meet at
8:30am at the following locations:

                    FERC Onsite Environmental Reviews
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Wednesday, October     Thursday, October
  Tuesday, October 28, 2014         29, 2014              30, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.      8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.  8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Granby Community         Old Town Hall, 3      Town Hall Annex, 445
 Center, 20 Center Street,     Silverbrook Road,     Delaware Avenue,
 East Granby, CT 06026.        Sandisfield, MA       Delmar, NY 12054.
                               01255.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional information regarding the onsite environmental
reviews, please contact FERC's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-
FERC.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this 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 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 agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Tennessee 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?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain

and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also
available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Tennessee proposes to construct, install, and operate new natural
gas pipeline loops to provide an additional 72,100 dekatherms per day
of firm transportation capacity to Tennessee's existing 200 Line and
300 Line pipeline system. Pipeline loops are segments of pipe
constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
    The Project would include construction and operation of the
following facilities:
     About 1.35 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline in Albany County, New York;
     about 3.81 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline in Berkshire County, Massachusetts;
     about 8.10 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline in Hampden County, Massachusetts and Hartford County,
Connecticut;
     modifications to the existing Agawarm Compressor Station
in Hampden County, Massachusetts; and
     other appurtenant and ancillary facilities.
    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'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 106
acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following
construction, Tennessee would maintain about 35 acres for permanent
operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. Tennessee would locate the pipeline
loops within or adjacent to its existing system rights-of-way where
practicable and feasible.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We note that
many comments were filed prior to this notice. We want to assure those
commentors that their concerns will be considered in the scope of our
environmental review; you do not need to resubmit comments. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ 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. Currently the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets has expressed their
intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the EA to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations 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, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the Project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
November 10, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit written comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP14-529-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment

feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. 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 must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

    Alternatively, you may attend one of the public scoping meetings
identified on page 1 of this notice and provide your comments verbally.
Verbal comments will be transcribed and made part of the public record
for this proceeding. Please note that we give equal consideration to
all comments whether submitted in written format or provided verbally
at one of the scoping meetings.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. 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. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

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 Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
529). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

     Dated: October 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25324 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (Volume 229, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 62861-62863]
[DOCID:fr01de09-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61053; File No. SR-CHX-2009-15]

Self Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Change by Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. to Its
Bylaws and Those of Its Parent Corporation, CHX Holdings, Inc.

November 23, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 13, 2009, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by CHX. CHX filed this
proposal pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act \3\ and requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period
contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend its Bylaws and those of its parent
corporation, CHX Holdings, Inc. (``CHX Holdings'') to eliminate an age
restriction for Directors. The text of this proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at (http://www.chx.com) and in the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to remove the current age restriction
relating to Directors in its Bylaws and in the Bylaws of the Exchange's
parent corporation. The Bylaws of both the Exchange and CHX Holdings
currently provide that no Director who is 71 years old or over is
eligible to begin a term of office, although he or she may complete a
term if elected prior to reaching age 71. The Exchange notes that
certain existing Directors of both corporations will be impacted by
this restriction in the near future. The forced departure of those
Directors could negatively impact the Exchange and its parent, due to
the loss of their knowledge and experience. The Exchange also has
received expressions of interest from persons above the age of 71 to be
nominated to stand for election as a Director of one or both
corporations and has had to turn them away due to the age restriction.
The Exchange believes that there it would be beneficial to be able to
consider the candidacy of such persons without regard to their age. The
removal of the age restrictions would be consistent with the provisions
of the bylaws of other national securities exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Bylaws of BATS Exchange, Inc., Article III, Sec.
3(b) (Terms of Office); Bylaws of National Stock Exchange, Inc.,
Article III, Sec.  3.4 (Terms of Office); Constitution of the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Article VI, Sec.  6.1 (Number,
Election and Term of Office of Directors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\6\ and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\7\ in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. By removing the age restriction from its bylaws and those of
CHX Holdings, the Exchange hopes to attract and retain additional
qualified candidates for service as Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
filing.\10\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\11\ permits the Commission
to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the proposed removal of age restrictions relating to Directors
are consistent with exchange bylaws the Commission has approved in the
past and does not raise any new regulatory issues.\12\ The Commission
hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the proposal as
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act requires a
self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice
of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change or such shorter items as designated by the Commission. CHX
has complied with this requirement.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See note 5 supra. For board composition of a parent company
of an exchange, see e.g., Bylaws of BATS Global Markets, Inc.,
Article III, Sec.  3.01.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2009-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2009-15. 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 the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-
2009-15 and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28617 Filed 11-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35242-35244]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0451]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, Newburgh, IN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River extending the entire
width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 777.3 to MM 778.3. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters near Newburgh, Indiana, during the City of Newburgh
fireworks display on September 4, 2021. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representatitve. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0451 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST3 Matthews U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On June 17, 2021, the Historic Newburgh, Inc notified the Coast
Guard

that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. to 10
p.m. on September 4, 2021. The fireworks are to be launched from the
shore of the Ohio River at approximately mile marker (MM) 777.3 to MM
778.3. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be
used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone on a one-mile
stretch of the Ohio River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a one-mile stretch of the Ohio River
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to
10 p.m. on September 4, 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters, extending the entire width of the river, from MM 777.3 to MM
778.3. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
scheduled 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person
would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone
would restrict transit on a one-mile stretch of the Ohio River for
thirty minutes on one day. Morever, the Coast Guard would issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs),
and Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) about this safety zone
so that waterway users may plan accordingly for this short restriction
on transit, and the rule would allow vessels to request 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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting only thirty minutes that will prohibit entry within a one-
mile stretch of the Ohio River for one day. Normally such

actions are 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 preliminary 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. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0451 in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, look for this document in
the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 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.T08-0451 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0451  Safety Zone; Ohio River, Newburgh, IN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Ohio River between MM 777.3 to MM 778.3 in Newburgh, IN.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 4, 2021.

    Dated: June 29, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-14228 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73545-73547]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-12-000]

Joint FERC-DOE Supply Chain Risk Management, Technical
Conference; Second Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a Joint Technical Conference with the U.S.
Department of Energy in the above-referenced proceeding on December 7,
2022, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The
conference will be held in-person at the Commission's headquarters at
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting
Room.
    The purpose of this conference is to discuss supply chain security
challenges related to the Bulk-Power System, ongoing supply chain-
related activities, and potential measures to secure the supply chain
for the grid's hardware, software, computer, and networking equipment.
FERC Commissioners and DOE's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security,
and Emergency Response (CESER) Director will be in attendance, and
panels will involve multiple DOE program offices, the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), trade associations, leading
vendors and manufacturers, and utilities.
    The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is
no fee for attendance. Information on this technical conference will
also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Simon Slobodnik at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For information related to logistics, please contact Lodie White at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO22.004

Supply Chain Risk Management Technical Conference; Docket No. AD22-12-
000 December 7, 2022; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

8:30 a.m. Opening Remarks and Introductions
8:45 a.m. Panel I: Supply Chain Risks Facing the Bulk-Power System
    The U.S. energy sector procures products and services from a
globally distributed, highly complex, and increasingly interconnected
set of supply chains. Information Technology (IT) and Operational
Technology (OT) systems enable increased interconnectivity, process
automation, and remote control. As a result, supply chain risks will
continue to evolve and likely increase.\1\ This panel will discuss the
state of supply chain risks from a national and geopolitical
perspective. Specifically, the panel will explore current supply chain
risks to the security of grid's hardware, software, computer, and
networking equipment and how well-resourced campaigns perpetrated by
nation states, such as the SolarWinds incident, affect supply chain
risk for the electric sector. Panelists will discuss the origins of
these risks, their pervasiveness, the possible impacts they could have
on Bulk-Power System reliability, and approaches to mitigating them.
The panelists will also discuss challenges associated with supply chain
visibility and covert embedded spyware or other compromising software
or hardware in suppliers' products, parts, or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. Dep't. of Energy, America's Strategy to Secure the
Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition: Response to
Executive Order 14017, America's Supply Chains, 42, (Feb. 24, 2022),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/America's%20Strategy%20to%20Secure%20the%20Supply%20Chain%20for%20a%2
0Robust%20Clean%20Energy%20Transition%20FINAL.docx_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and
questions:
    1. Describe the types of challenges and risks associated with
globally distributed, highly complex, and increasingly interconnected
supply chains.
    2. Describe the difficulties associated with supply chain
visibility and how origins of products or components may be obscured.
    3. How are foreign-supplied Bulk-Power System components being
manipulated and is there a particular phase in the product lifecycle
where the product is manipulated for nefarious intent?
    4. How are these supply chain challenges and risks currently being
managed?
    5. How has the current geopolitical landscape impacted the energy
sector's ability to manage supply chain challenges and risks?
    6. How can Sector Risk Management Agencies and Regulators promote
and/or incentivize supply chain transparency at the earlier stages of
product development and manufacturing?
    7. Discuss the pathways (e.g., voluntary best practices and
guidelines, mandatory standards) that together could address the
current supply chain challenges and risks?
    8. What actions can government take, both formal regulatory actions
and coordination, to help identify and mitigate risks from the global
supply chain for the energy sector?

Panelists
 Eric Goldstein, Executive Assistant Director for
Cybersecurity, Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity &
Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS CISA)
 Mara Winn, Deputy Director, Preparedness, Policy, and Risk
Analysis, DOE CESER
 Jeanette McMillian, Assistant Director, Supply Chain and Cyber
Directorate, National Counterintelligence and Security Center
 Manny Cancel, Senior Vice President, NERC and CEO, Electricity
Information Sharing and Analysis Center
 Marty Edwards, Deputy Chief Technical Officer--OT/IoT, Tenable
 Bonnie Titone, Senior Vice President and Chief Information
Officer, Duke Energy
 Representative of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Industry and Security (invited)
10:30 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m. Panel II: Current Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)
Reliability Standards, Implementation Challenges, Gaps, and
Opportunities for Improvement
    It has now been more than six years since the Commission directed
the development of mandatory standards to address supply chain risks,
and more than two years since the first set of those standards became
effective. As discussed in Panel 1, supply chain risks have continued
to grow in that time. In light of that evolving threat, panelists will
discuss the existing SCRM Reliability Standards, including: (1) their
effectiveness in securing the Bulk-Power System; (2) lessons learned
from implementation of the current SCRM Reliability Standards; and (3)
possible gaps in the currently effective SCRM Reliability Standards.
This panel will also provide an opportunity to discuss any Reliability
Standards in development, and how these new standards will help enhance
security and help address some of the emerging supply chain threats.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and
questions:
    1. Are the currently effective SCRM Reliability Standards
sufficient to successfully ensure Bulk-Power System reliability and
security in light of existing and emerging risks?
    2. What requirements in the SCRM Reliability Standards present
implementation challenges for registered entities and for vendors?
    3. How are implementation challenges being addressed for utilities
and for vendors?
    4. Are there alternative methods for implementing the SCRM
Reliability Standards that could eliminate challenges or enhance
effectiveness moving forward?
    5. Based on the current and evolving threat landscape, would the
currently effective SCRM Reliability Standards benefit from additional
mandatory security control requirements and how would these additional
controls improve the security of the Bulk-Power System?
    6. Are there currently effective SCRM criteria or standards that
manufacturers must adhere to in foreign countries that may be prudent
to adopt in the U.S.?
Panelists
 Howard Gugel, Vice President, Engineering and Standards, NERC
 Adrienne Lotto, Senior Vice President of Grid Security,
Technical & Operations Services, American Public Power Association
 Jeffrey Sweet, Director of Security Assessments, American
Electric Power
 Shari Gribbin, Managing Partner, CNK Solutions
 Scott Aaronson, Senior Vice President of Security and
Preparedness, Edison Electric Institute
12:15 p.m. Lunch
1:15 p.m. Panel III: The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Cyber Sense
Program
    Through the Energy Cyber Sense Program, DOE will provide a
comprehensive approach to securing the nation's critical energy
infrastructure and supply chains from cyber threats with this voluntary
program. The Energy Cyber Sense Program will build upon direction in
Section 40122 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as well as multiple
requests from industry, leveraging existing programs and technologies,
while also initiating new efforts. Through Energy Cyber Sense, DOE aims
to work with manufacturers and asset owners to discover, mitigate, and
engineer out cyber vulnerabilities in digital components in the Energy
Sector Industrial Base critical supply chains. This program will
provide a better understanding of the impacts and dependencies of
software and systems used in the energy sector; illuminate the digital
provenance of subcomponents in energy systems, hardware, and software;
apply best-in-class testing to discover and address common mode
vulnerabilities; and provide education and awareness, across the sector
and the broader supply chain community to optimize management of supply
chain risks. This panel will discuss specific supply chain risks that
Energy Cyber Sense will address as well as some of the programs and
technologies DOE will bring to bear under the program to address the
risks.
    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and
questions:
    1. How are emerging orders, standards, and process guidance, such
as Executive Order 14017, Executive Order 14028, NIST Special
Publication 800-161r1, ISA 62443, CIP-013-1, and others, changing how
we assess our digital supply chain?
    2. Given the dependence of OT on application-specific hardware, how
could the inclusion and linkage of Hardware Bill of Materials (HBOMs)
with Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs) increase our ability to
accurately and effectively assess and mitigate supply chain risk? To
what degree is this inclusion and linkage of HBOMs with SBOMs taking
place today and what steps should be taken to fill any remaining gaps?
    3. Given that much of the critical technology used in the energy
sector is considered legacy technology, how can manufacturers, vendors,
asset owners and operators, aided by the federal government, national
laboratories, and other organizations, manage the supply chain risk
from legacy technology? How can this risk management be coordinated
with newer technologies that are more likely to receive SBOMs, HBOMs,
and attestations?
    4. Where does testing, for example Cyber Testing for Resilient
Industrial Control Systems (CyTRICS) and third-party testing, fit in
the universe of ``rigorous and predictable mechanisms for ensuring that
products function securely, and as intended? '' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Exec. Order No. 14028, 86 FR 26,633, 26,646 (May 12,
2021) (The Executive Order declared that the security of software
used by the Federal Government is ``vital to the Federal
Government's ability to perform its critical functions.'' The
Executive Order further cited a ``pressing need to implement more
rigorous and predictable mechanisms for ensuring that products
function securely, and as intended.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. More than ever, developers are building applications on open-
source software libraries. How can developers address the risks
inherent with open-source software and how can asset owners work with
vendors to validate that appropriate open-source risk management
measures have been taken?
    6. U.S. energy systems have significant dependencies on hardware
components, including integrated

circuits and semiconductors, most of which are manufactured outside of
the U.S. What tools and technologies are needed to understand the
provenance of hardware components used in U.S. energy systems and the
risks from foreign manufacture? How will the newly passed CHIPS and
Science Act change the risk landscape? What is needed in terms of
regulation, standards, and other guidance to strengthen the security of
the hardware component supply chain from cyber and other risks?
Panelists
 Steven Kunsman, Director Product Management and Applications,
Hitachi Energy
 Ron Brash, Vice President Technical Research & Integrations,
aDolus
 Zachary Tudor, Associate Laboratory Director, National and
Homeland Security
 Allan Friedman, Senior Advisor and Strategist, DHS CISA
 Brian Barrios, Vice President, Cybersecurity & IT Compliance,
Southern California, Edison
 Representative of Amazon Web Services (invited)
2:45 p.m. Break
3:00 p.m. Panel IV: Enhancing the Supply Chain Security Posture of the
Bulk-Power System
    This panel will discuss forward-looking initiatives that can be
used to improve the supply chain security posture of the Bulk-Power
System. These initiatives could include vendor accreditation programs,
product and service verification, improved internal supply chain
security capability, third party services, and private and public
partnerships.
    Vendor accreditation can be established in various ways. One of the
more prominent ways is currently being explored by the North American
Transmission Forum through its Supply Chain Security Assessment model
and the associated questionnaire.\3\ The panel will also explore
certain programs and practices used by utilities to verify the
authenticity and effectiveness of products and services. Internal
supply chain security capabilities include hiring people with the
appropriate background and knowledge, while also developing relevant
skills internally, through training on broad supply chain topics and
applying them to the specific needs of the organization. Finally, this
panel will address private and public partnerships on supply chain
security and how they can facilitate timely access to information that
will help better identify current and future supply chain threats to
the Bulk-Power System and best practices to address those risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.natf.net/industry-initiatives/supply-chain-industry-coordination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and
questions:
    1. What vendor accreditation programs currently exist or are in
development? How can entities vet a vendor in the absence of a vendor
accreditation program?
    2. What are the challenges, benefits, and risks associated with
utilizing third-party services for maintaining a supply chain risk
management program?
    3. What are the best practices and other guidance for security
evaluation of vendors?
    4. What programs and practices are currently in use to ensure
product and service integrity?
    5. What processes are used to test products prior to
implementation?
    6. What is the right balance between vendor and product security
and cost? Is there a point of diminishing returns?
    7. What are effective strategies for recruiting personnel with the
appropriate background and SCRM skills to strengthen internal security
practices? How do you provide the training necessary to further develop
the skills specific to your unique organizational challenges?
    8. What are the best ways to meaningfully assimilate SBOM
information and what subsequent analyses can be done to strengthen
internal security practices?
    9. How can the industry keep informed of the latest supply chain
compromises? How do entities currently respond to these compromises to
keep their systems secure? Are there ways to improve these responses?
What actions can government take, both formal regulatory actions and
coordination, to help keep industry informed of supply chain
compromises and to facilitate effective responses?
    10. What key risk factors do entities need to consider prior to
leveraging third party services and how should those risk factors be
balanced with an entity's organizational policy? What SCRM controls do
you have in place to ensure your systems and products have a reduced
risk of compromise? Please discuss any challenges that you have
experienced as well as successes.
    11. How should government and industry prioritize and coordinate
federal cross-agency and private sector collaboration and activities
regarding SCRM?
Panelists
 Tobias Whitney, Vice President of Strategy and Policy,
Fortress Information Security
 Valerie Agnew, General Counsel, North American Transmission
Forum
 David Schleicher, President and CEO, Northern Virginia
Electric Cooperative
 Ron Schoff, Director, Research & Development, Electric Power
Research Institute
 Representative of the National Risk Management Center, DHS
CISA (invited)
 Representative of the Office of National Cyber Director
(invited)
 Representative of the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (invited)
4:45 p.m. Closing Remarks
5:00 p.m. Adjourn
[FR Doc. 2022-26092 Filed 11-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

1. It's not enough time. 2. If you're going to regulate e-cigs which have killed no one, yet allow the sale and use of 'real cigarettes' which kill THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR, your priorities are screwed-up. 3. If e-cigs killed as many Americans per year as (an example) cosmetics do, I could see this. But they don't.

Thanks, Jeff Pulice


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 60421]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14887-000]

Southeast Oklahoma Power Corporation; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    1. On July 31, 2018, Southeast Oklahoma Power Corporation, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Southeast Oklahoma Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (project) to be
located on the Kiamichi River, near the town of Whitesboro, in LeFlore
County, Oklahoma. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    2. The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A
2,165-foot-long, 302-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill upper dam with a
196.85-foot-long emergency spillway with a 600-foot-long, 30-foot-wide
channel; (2) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 488.52 acres and
a storage capacity of 43,633 acre-feet; (3) a 98.4-foot-long, 39.4-
foot-high concrete upper intake/outlet structure; (4) a 6,370-foot-
long, 27.8-foot-diameter steel and concrete headrace tunnel; (5) a 545-
foot-long, 90-foot-wide, 185.4-foot-high underground concrete pumping
station/powerhouse containing four pump/generating units with a total
capacity of 1,200 megawatts; (6) a 7,439-foot-long, 27.8-foot-diameter
tailrace tunnel; (7) a 98.4-foot-long, 39.4-foot-high concrete lower
intake/outlet structure; (8) a 9,957-foot-long, 52.5-foot-high earthen
lower dam with a 33-foot-long, 13-foot-high emergency spillway with a
1,640-foot-long tunnel to the Kiamichi River; (9) a lower reservoir
with a surface area of 727 acres, and a storage capacity of 37,965
acre-feet; (10) two 20-inch-diameter, 675-foot-long pipes with 110
kilowatt pumps from the lower reservoir to the regulating reservoir;
(11) a regulating reservoir with a surface area of 40 acres, and a
storage capacity of 1,216 acre-feet; (12) two 20-inch-diameter, 690-
foot-long pipes with two 110 kilowatt pumps from the Kiamichi River to
the regulating reservoir; (13) a 40-foot-long, 40-foot-wide funnel
shaped intake structure on the Kiamichi River, located 1.5-foot above
the bottom of the Kiamichi River tapering down to 10-foot-long, 10-
foot-wide section where it connects to the two pipes; and (14) a 124-
mile-long transmission line to the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas grid.
    The proposed project would relocate State Road 248 (Post Oar Road)
and 583rd Street because the lower reservoir would otherwise inundate
them. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual
generation of 4,368,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. John Bobenic, Southeast Oklahoma Power
Corporation, c/o Daytona Power Corp, 1800, 421-7 Avenue SW, Calgary,
Alberta Canada T2P 4K9; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14887-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14887) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25585 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P