[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25714]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-43-000.
    Applicants: Sherbino I Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Clarifying information of Sherbino I Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120403-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1589-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 2012-4-20--Att--O-PSCo Rate Filing to be effective 6/
20/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120420-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1590-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: AECI and Cargill PtP Service Agreements to be
effective 4/20/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120420-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES12-36-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Application for Authority to Issue Short Term
Securities.
    Filed Date: 4/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120420-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH12-11-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
    Description: Application (Notification of Waiver of Algonquin Power
& Utilities Corp.) of Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
    Filed Date: 4/20/12.
    Accession Number: 20120420-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/12.

    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: April 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10403 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7692-7695]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0960; Project Identifier 2019-CE-021-AD; Amendment
39-21921; AD 2022-03-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 80-13-10,
AD 80-13-12 R1, and AD 2008-03-01, which applied to certain de
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-
6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300 airplanes. AD 80-13-10
required repetitively inspecting the main landing gear (MLG) legs for
cracks and corrosion. AD 80-13-12 R1 required repetitively inspecting
each engine nacelle lower longeron for cracks and buckling. AD 2008-03-
01 required incorporating inspections, modifications, and life limits
of certain structural components into the aircraft maintenance program.
Since the FAA issued those ADs, new and more restrictive airworthiness
limitations have been issued for certain structural components. This AD
requires incorporating into maintenance records new or revised life
limits, modification limits, and inspection or overhaul intervals. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (North America) (800)
663-8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: https://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0960.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0960; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aviation Safety Engineer,
New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 80-13-10, Amendment 39-3812 (45 FR 43155,
June 26, 1980) (AD 80-13-10); AD 80-13-12 R1, Amendment 39-4135 (46 FR
31251, June 15, 1981) (AD 80-13-12 R1); and AD 2008-03-01, Amendment 39
15350 (73 FR 5729, January 31, 2008)

(AD 2008-03-01). AD 80-13-10 applied to de Havilland (type certificate
now held by Viking Air Limited) Model ``DHC-6 type'' airplanes with
certain MLG legs and required repetitively inspecting the weld juncture
at the Y-joint of the MLG legs for cracks and corrosion. AD 80-13-12 R1
applied to certain serial-numbered de Havilland (now Viking Air
Limited) Model ``DHC-6 type'' airplanes with intermediate or high
floatation tires, skis, or floats and required repetitively inspecting
each engine nacelle lower longeron for cracks and buckling. AD 2008-03-
01 applied to all Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-
200, and DHC-6-300 airplanes and required incorporating the
inspections, modifications, and life limits (retirement) of certain
structural components, as contained in Revision 5 of the DHC-6 Product
Support Manual (PSM) 1-6-11, into the aircraft maintenance program. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2021 (86 FR
61719).
    The NPRM was prompted by Canadian AD CF-2019-02, dated January 9,
2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), issued by Transport
Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI applies to
all Viking Air Limited (formerly de Havilland) Model DHC-6 series 1,
DHC-6 series 100, DHC-6 series 110, DHC-6 series 200, DHC-6 series 210,
DHC-6 series 300, DHC-6 series 310, DHC-6 series 320, and DHC-6 series
400 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for DHC-6 aeroplanes are defined
and published in the Viking Air Ltd. (Viking) Airframe Airworthiness
Limitations Manual, Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-6-11, approved by
Transport Canada. The instructions contained in PSM 1-6-11 have been
identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure
to comply with those instructions could result in an unsafe
condition.
    Viking Air Ltd. published Revision 9 of PSM 1-6-11 earlier in
2018. Revision 9 of PSM 1-6-11, dated 30 April 2018, includes some
new and/or more restrictive limitations than those contained in
Revision 5. For the reason described above, this [Transport Canada]
AD requires implementation of the actions specified in PSM 1-6-11
Revision 9.
    The compliance requirements for several of the tasks in PSM 1-6-
11 were previously a range of flight hours and flight cycles. With
Revision 9 of PSM 1-6-11, the range-based requirements have been
changed to specific flight hours and flight cycle limits. This
[Transport Canada] AD provides a phase-in allowance for those
limitations so that operators will have the opportunity to schedule
the modifications and inspections required by the limitations. The
phase-in allowances are intended to mitigate the impact of changing
from compliance ranges to compliance limits for aeroplanes that are
approaching or have exceeded the limits on the effective date of the
[Transport Canada] AD.
    Revision 9 of PSM 1-6-11 also includes some airworthiness
limitations that were previously contained in service bulletins (SB)
or other PSMs. Some of those limitations were mandated by [Transport
Canada] ADs, specifically AD CF-80-06, CF-81-07R4 and CF-95-12.
Because the affected limitations will now be controlled in PSM 1-6-
11, the above mentioned [Transport Canada] ADs are superseded by
this [Transport Canada] AD.
    The following are new tasks in PSM 1-6-11 Revision 9:
    1. Task 27-007 Replacement of flight control pulleys at Fuselage
Station (FS) 270.
    2. Tasks 32-001 and 32-002 Overhaul of main landing gear leg.
There is an associated requirement to ensure that each affected part
has been assigned a unique serial number.
    3. Task 53-006 Inspection of the skin flange of machined frame
at FS 239.
    4. Tasks 54-003 to 54-010 Inspection of nacelle longerons.
    5. Tasks 57-039 to 57-041 Inspection for wing upper skin
disbond.
    Task 27-004 Replacement of flight control cables after spillage
of corrosive materials in PSM 1-6-11 was limited to landplane
configurations in previous revisions of PSM 1-6-11 but is now
applicable to all configurations.
    The intent of the word ``airframe'' in PSM 1-6-11 Revision 9 is
to include fuselage, nacelles, struts, interiors, cowlings,
fairings, airfoils, landing gear and their controls. The airframe
life limitation in PSM 1-6-11 Revision 9 is not intended to apply to
components such as those in the fuel, electrical and hydraulic
systems that are occasionally transferred from one aeroplane to
another and may be salvaged from an aeroplane that is retired from
service for use on an in-service aeroplane. PSM 1-6-13 defines
current airworthiness limitations for DHC-6 avionics that are not
addressed in this [Transport Canada] AD.

    Model DHC-6-400 airplanes were type certificated after Transport
Canada AD CF-2000-14 was issued and are subject to the same unsafe
condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0960.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA determined that air
safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Viking Air Limited DHC-6 Twin Otter PSM 1-6-11,
Airframe Airworthiness Limitations Manual, Revision 9, dated April 30,
2018. The service information contains airworthiness limitations for
certain structural components. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in
ADDRESSES.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations

    The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by
issuing ADs that require revising the airworthiness limitation section
(ALS) of the existing maintenance manual or instructions for continued
airworthiness to incorporate new or revised inspections and life
limits. This AD, however, requires incorporating new or revised
inspections and life limits into the maintenance records required by 14
CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for your airplane. The FAA does not
intend this as a substantive change. Requiring incorporation of the new
ALS requirements into the maintenance records, rather than requiring
individual repetitive inspections and replacements, allows operators to
record AD compliance once after updating the maintenance records,
rather than recording compliance after every inspection and part
replacement.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6 series 110, DHC-
6 series 210, DHC-6 series 310, and DHC-6 series 320, and this AD does
not because these models do not have an FAA type certificate. Transport
Canada Models DHC-6 series 1, DHC-6 series 100, DHC-6 series 200, DHC-6
series 300, and DHC-6 series 400 airplanes correspond to FAA Model DHC-
6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400 airplanes,
respectively.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

    The FAA also estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per
airplane to incorporate life limits, modification limits, and
inspection or overhaul intervals into maintenance records. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,805 or $85 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 80-13-10, Amendment 39-3812 (45 FR
43155, June 26, 1980); Airworthiness Directive 80-13-12 R1, Amendment
39-4135 (46 FR 31251, June 15, 1981); and Airworthiness Directive 2008-
03-01, Amendment 39-15350 (73 FR 5729, January 31, 2008); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-03-04 Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39-21921; Docket
No. FAA-2021-0960; Project Identifier 2019-CE-021-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) of this AD.
    (1) AD 80-13-10, Amendment 39-3812 (45 FR 43155, June 26, 1980).
    (2) AD 80-13-12 R1, Amendment 39-4135 (46 FR 31251, June 15,
1981).
    (3) AD 2008-03-01 Amendment 39-15350 (73 FR 5729, January 31,
2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400 airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 0500, Time Limits.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as failure to
comply with new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations,
including tasks where range-based requirements have been changed to
specific hours time-in-service (TIS) and flight cycle limits. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent loss of structural integrity of
certain parts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result
in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance and Life Limits

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for your airplane the life limits,
modification limits, and inspection or overhaul intervals in Viking
Air Limited DHC-6 Twin Otter PSM 1-6-11, Airframe Airworthiness
Limitations Manual, Revision 9, dated April 30, 2018 (Viking Air
Limited PSM 1-6-11, Revision 9).
    (2) Before further flight after revising the maintenance records
as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, except as allowed under
paragraph (h) of this AD, remove from service each part that has
reached or exceeded its life limit and modify each part that has
reached or exceeded its modification limit.
    (3) Before further flight after revising the maintenance records
as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, except as allowed under
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect or overhaul each part that has
reached or exceeded its inspection or overhaul interval.

(h) Phase-in Period

    The following phase-in periods are allowed to comply with the
initial tasks in Viking Air Limited PSM 1-6-11, Revision 9.
    (1) Task 27-007: For any pulley that has been in service for 48
or more months on the effective date of this AD, replace the pulley
within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Tasks 32-001 and 32-002:
    (i) For any main landing gear (MLG) leg that, on the effective
date of this AD, has not been marked with a new serial number as
specified in Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin V6/00063:
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect and
serialize the MLG leg. The absence of a serial number indicates that
the initial inspection of the landing gear leg has not previously
been accomplished.
    (ii) For all other MLG legs, overhaul the MLG leg within 60
months after the last overhaul.
    (3) Tasks 57-006, 57-007, 57-010, 57-011, 57-013, and 57-014:
    (i) For any wing that on the effective date of this AD has
accumulated more than 16,000 hours total TIS or 32,000 total flight
cycles but less than 17,000 hours total TIS or less than 34,000
total flight cycles, accomplish the task within 1,000 hours TIS or
2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first after the effective date
of this AD.
    (ii) For any wing that on the effective date of this AD has
accumulated 17,000 or more hours total TIS or 34,000 or more total
flight cycles, accomplish the task before accumulating 18,000 hours
total TIS or 36,000 total flight cycles, or within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (4) Tasks 57-018, 57-019, 57-022, 57-023, 57-026, 57-027, 57-
030, and 57-031:
    (i) For any wing that on the effective date of this AD has
accumulated more than 11,000 hours total TIS or 22,000 total flight
cycles but less than 12,000 hours total TIS or less than 24,000
total flight cycles, accomplish the task within 1,000 hours TIS or
2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first after the effective date
of this AD.

    (ii) For any wing that on the effective date of this AD has
accumulated 12,000 or more hours total TIS or 24,000 or more total
flight cycles, accomplish the task before accumulating 13,000 hours
total TIS or 26,000 total flight cycles or within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (5) Tasks 57-039 to 57-041 inclusive: For any wing that on the
effective date of this AD has more than 20 years since the date of
manufacture and has not previously been inspected in accordance with
Viking Service Bulletin V6/0018, inspect the wing upper surface
within 120 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance records have been revised as required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections)
or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA,1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(516) 794-5531; email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2019-02, dated January 9,
2019, for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada AD
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0960.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Viking Air Limited DHC-6 Twin Otter PSM 1-6-11, Airframe
Airworthiness Limitations Manual, Revision 9, dated April 30, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (North America) (800) 663-
8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: https://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 20, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02715 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31493]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0373]
RIN 1625-AA08
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Marine Events and Safety
Zones; Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival; Santa Rosa Sound; Ft. Walton
Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Special Local Regulation and a
Safety Zone for the Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival in the Santa Rosa
Sound, Ft. Walton Beach, FL on June 1 and June 2, 2012. This action is
necessary to safeguard participants and spectators, including all
crews, vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the Billy
Bowlegs Pirate Festival. During the enforcement period, entry into,
transiting or anchoring in the regulated area is prohibited to all
vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official
patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Table No. 99 and
Sector Mobile No. 12; and 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Table No. 144 and
Sector Mobile No. 3 will be enforced on June 1 and June 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector
Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1 and June 2, 2012, the Coast Guard
will enforce the Special Local Regulation in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1,
Table No. 99 and Sector Mobile No. 12, and the Safety Zone in 33 CFR
165.801, Table 1, Table No. 144 and Sector Mobile No. 3 for the annual
Billy Bowlegs Pirate Festival.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, all persons and vessels not
registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels
are considered spectators. The ``official patrol vessels'' consist of
any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement and sponsor provided
vessels assigned or approved by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District, to patrol the event. Spectator vessels desiring to transit
the regulated area listed in Sec.  100.801 Table 1, Table No. 99 and
Sector Mobile No. 12 may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol
Commander and when so directed by that officer and will be operated at
a no wake speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the
event or any other craft. No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels
in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless
cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. The Patrol
Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the
regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a
vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions
given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation
for failure to comply, or both. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside
the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a
navigable channel. The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the
operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the
protection of life or property. The Patrol Commander will terminate
enforcement of the special regulations at the conclusion of the event.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 144 and Sector Mobile No. 3 is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In
addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information
Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Mobile or Patrol Commander determines
that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration
stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
K.D. Ivery,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2012-12951 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 11107]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-39-000]

New York Regional Interconnect, Inc.; Notice of Filing

February 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 12, 2008, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2007),
New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. filed a Petition of Declaratory
Order for Incentive Rate Treatment.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3882 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57741-57744]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20378]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95798; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List To Reflect the Fee for Directed Orders Routed by
the Exchange to an Alternative Trading System

September 15, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 7, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to reflect the fee
for Directed Orders routed by the Exchange to an alternative trading
system (``ATS''). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Price List to reflect the
fee for Directed Orders routed by the Exchange to an ATS. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective September 9, 2022.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance
of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also,
recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\6\ numerous alternative trading systems,\7\ and
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 17% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume
of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is currently has less
than 12%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain exchange transaction fees because market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to Commission approval, the Exchange adopted a new order
type known as Directed Orders.\10\ A Directed Order is a Limit Order
\11\ with instructions to route on arrival at its limit price to a
specified ATS with which the Exchange maintains an electronic linkage.
Under Exchange rules, the ATS to which a Directed Order is routed would
be responsible for validating whether the order is eligible to be
accepted, and if such ATS determines to reject the order, the order
would be cancelled. Directed Orders must be designated with a Time in
Force modifier of Day \12\ or IOC \13\ and are eligible to be
designated for the Core Trading Session \14\ only. Directed Orders that
are the subject of this proposed rule change would be routed to
OneChronos LLC (``OneChronos'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 7.31(f)(1). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 95423 (August 4, 2022), 87 FR 48741 (August 10, 2022)
(SR-NYSE-2022-20).
    \11\ A Limit Order is defined in Rule 7.31(a)(2) as an order to
buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified price or
better.
    \12\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31(b)(1), any order to buy or sell
designated Day, if not traded, will expire at the end of the
designated session on the day on which it was entered.
    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31(b)(2), a Limit Order may be
designated with an Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') modifier.
    \14\ The Core Trading Session for each security begins at 9:30
a.m. Eastern Time and ends at the conclusion of Core Trading Hours.
See Rule 7.34(a)(2). The term ``Core Trading Hours'' means the hours
of 9:30 a.m. eastern time through 4 p.m. eastern time or such other
hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time. See
Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In anticipation of the scheduled implementation of routing
functionality to OneChronos,\15\ the Exchange proposes to amend the
Price List to state that the Exchange will not charge a fee for
Directed Orders routed to OneChronos. To reflect the no fee, the
Exchange proposes to amend the current table under Transaction Fees.
Specifically, under Routing Fee--per share, the Exchange proposes to
adopt new rule text to state ``No fee for a Directed Order, as defined
in Rule 7.31(f)(1), routed to OneChronos LLC'' for securities priced at
or above $1.00. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt similar
rule text under Transaction Fees and Credits For Tape B and C
Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the first
bullet under Routing Fees. As proposed, the first bullet would state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/110000456275/OneChronos_August_2022_Trader_Update_Final.pdf.

    [cir] For securities at or above $1.00, no fee for a Directed
Order, as defined in Rule 7.31(f)(1), routed to OneChronos LLC;
$0.0005 per share in a NYSE American Auction; $0.0010 per share
execution in an Away Market Auction at venues other than NYSE
American; $0.0035 per share for all other executions, or $0.0030 if
the member organization has adding ADV in Tapes A, B, and C combined
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is at least 0.20% of Tapes A, B and C CADV combined.

    The Exchange believes that the Directed Order functionality would
facilitate additional trading opportunities by offering member
organizations the ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange
to be routed to OneChronos for execution. The Exchange believes the
functionality could create efficiencies for member organizations that
choose to use the functionality by enabling them to send orders that
they wish to route to OneChronos through the Exchange by leveraging
order entry protocols already configured for their interaction with the
Exchange. Member organizations that choose not to utilize Directed
Orders would continue to be able to trade on the Exchange as they
currently do.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\17\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and

other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is a
reasonable means to incent member organizations to utilize the Directed
Order functionality and evaluate its efficacy. The proposed routing of
orders to OneChronos is provided by the Exchange on a voluntary basis
and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange offer it. Nor does
any rule or regulation require market participants to send orders to an
ATS generally, let alone to OneChronos. The routing of orders to
OneChronos would operate similarly to the Primary Only Order already
offered by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE Chicago, Inc.
(``NYSE Chicago'') and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'')
(``collectively, the ``Affiliated Exchanges''). On the Affiliated
Exchanges, a Primary Only Order is an order that is routed directly to
the primary listing market on arrival, without being assigned a working
time or interacting with interest on the order book of the exchange to
which it was submitted.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE American Rule 7.31E(f)(1); NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-
E(f)(1); NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(f)(1); NYSE National Rule
7.31(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposal
represents an equitable allocation of fees because it would apply
uniformly to all member organizations, in that all member organizations
will have the ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to
be routed to OneChronos, and each such member organization would not be
charged a fee when utilizing the new functionality. While the Exchange
has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would serve as
an incentive to utilize the new order type, the Exchange expects that a
number of member organizations will utilize the new functionality
because it would create efficiencies for member organizations by
enabling them to send orders that they wish to route to OneChronos
through the Exchange, thereby enabling them to leverage order entry
protocols already configured for their interactions with the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory
as the proposal to not charge a fee would be assessed on an equal basis
to all member organizations that use the Directed Order functionality.
The proposal to not charge a fee would also enable member organizations
to evaluate the efficacy of the new functionality. Moreover, this
proposed rule change neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that this proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the changes described in this proposal would be applied to all
similarly situated member organizations. Accordingly, no member
organization already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged
by the proposed allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that
the proposed rule change would not permit unfair discrimination among
member organizations because the Directed Order functionality would be
available to all member organizations on an equal basis and each such
participant would not be charged a fee for using the functionality.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
member organizations in that they could choose whether to submit orders
to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this
regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \21\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed
amendment to its Price List would not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is a reasonable
means to incent member organizations to utilize the Directed Order
functionality and allow member organizations to evaluate its efficacy.
The Directed Order functionality would be available to all member
organizations and all member organizations that use the Directed Order
functionality to route their orders to OneChronos will not be charged a
routing fee. The proposed routing of orders to OneChronos is provided
by the Exchange on a voluntary basis and no rule or regulation requires
that the Exchange offer it. Member organizations have the choice
whether or not to use the Directed Order functionality and those that
choose not to utilize it will not be impacted by the proposed rule
change. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change
would impact intramarket competition as the proposed rule change would
apply to all member organizations equally that choose to utilize the
Directed Order functionality, and therefore the proposed change would
not impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants
on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading is currently
less than 12%. In such an environment, the Exchange

must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on intermarket competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-43 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-NYSE-2022-43. 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 the 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-NYSE-2022-43, and should be submitted on
or before October 12, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20378 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Meeting Notes:

On December 18, 2007, Congressman Markey's Office called Michael Ochs,
EPA New England’s Government Relations Office, to set up a conference
call to discuss Massachusetts' Transit System Improvements.

The conference call was held at 10:00 am, Thursday, December 20, 2007.

Participants from EPA New England were:

	Michael Ochs, Government Relations Office,

	Tim Williamson, Office of Regional Counsel,

	Anne Arnold, Manager – Air Quality Planning Unit and

	Donald Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit.

Participating from Congressman Markey’s Office were:

	Patrick Lally,

	Matt Harutunian and

	Sarah Butler.

Mr. Lally recognized that the Federal Register regarding the notice of
proposed rule making for “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Amendment to Massachusetts’ State
Implementation Plan for Transit System Improvements.” was published in
early November [November 5, 2007 (72 FR 62422-62427)] and that the
public comment period had closed [the public comment period closed
December 5, 2008.]  Mr. Lally asked about EPA’s role in the process of
reviewing the proposed changes to transportation project requirements in
the Massachusetts state implementation plan (SIP).

Mr. Cooke gave a brief history on transportation control measures
connected with the Central Artery/ Third Harbor Tunnel Project and
adopted into the SIP.  Mr. Williamson followed with a discussion on
EPA’s role in reviewing Massachusetts SIP revision which  modified the
transportation control measures and the limits on EPA’s discretion
when reviewing the Commonwealth’s proposed SIP revision, providing the
revision satisfies the Clean Air Act’s criteria, including attaining
and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  Discussions
continued explaining EPA’s process in approving SIP revisions.

Congressman Markey’s staff then thanked EPA for participating on the
conference call.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48312-48314]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0086]

Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: On September 12, 2017, NHTSA published Automated Driving
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. This voluntary guidance encourages
entities involved in the testing and deployment of Automated Driving
Systems on public roads to document for themselves how they are
addressing safety. Further, the Guidance recommends that these same
entities summarize their assessments and make it available to the
public via Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments. NHTSA is announcing a
public workshop to support entities that wish to make their self-
assessment publicly available. The Agency emphasizes that the workshop
is not intended to be a tutorial for a prescriptive document. NHTSA
hopes to hear from entities if there are any challenges that would make
it difficult for an entity to publicly disclose any portion of a
Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment in a summary document, and discuss how
those challenges might be overcome or mitigated. To provide the most
benefit, this workshop will encourage active, focused participation.

DATES: NHTSA will hold the public workshop on October 20, 2017, from 10
a.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Check-in will begin at 9 a.m.
Attendees should arrive early enough to enable them to go through
security by 9:50 a.m. The formal docket comment period will close on
December 18, 2017, but the Agency will continue to accept comments to
the docket.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at DOT Headquarters,
located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line
Metro station at Navy Yard) in the [Oklahoma City Conference Room].
This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the public
workshop, please contact NHTSA staff at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Debbie
Sweet at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Registration is necessary for all attendees.
Attendees should register online at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeLcUn2Dw2fNWEa8f9zWh7NkleQgNv5GreVaP_I_Rv_sb6X8w/viewform?usp=sf_link by October 17, 2017. Please provide your name,
email address, and affiliation. Also indicate whether you plan to
participate actively in the workshop (speaking would be limited to 5
minutes per agenda topic), and whether you require accommodations such
as a sign language interpreter. Space is limited, so advanced
registration is highly encouraged.
    Docket: Docket NHTSA-2017-0086 is available for members of the
public to submit written comments regarding the Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment as laid out in Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for
Safety. The formal docket comment period will close on December 18,
2017, but the Agency will continue to accept comments to the docket.
For access to the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time
or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), by visiting
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Background

    On September 20, 2016, NHTSA released and published for comment the
Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. The comment period officially closed
on November 22, 2016, but comments were considered through February 16,
2017. NHTSA analyzed the docket comments, public meeting proceedings
and other stakeholder discussions, Congressional hearings, and State
activities and published on September 12, 2017, Automated Driving
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety.\1\ This notice focuses on Section I
of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1: Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems
(Voluntary Guidance) provides recommendations and suggestions for
industry's

consideration and discussion. This Voluntary Guidance includes no
compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism. The purpose of this
Voluntary Guidance is to support the industry as it develops best
practices in the design, development, testing, and deployment of
automated vehicle technologies. It is a non-regulatory approach to the
safety of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) (SAE International automation
Levels 3 through 5--Conditional, High, and Full Automation Systems).
    NHTSA offers the Voluntary Guidance to help designers of ADSs
analyze, identify, and resolve safety considerations prior to
deployment using their own industry and other best practices. The
Voluntary Guidance outlines 12 safety elements which the Agency
believes represent the consensus across the industry, that are
generally considered to be the most salient design aspects to consider
and address when developing, testing, and deploying ADSs on public
roadways. Among these elements are vehicle cybersecurity, human machine
interface, crashworthiness, consumer education and training, and post-
crash ADS behavior. Within each safety design element, entities are
encouraged to consider and document their use of industry standards,
best practices, company policies, or other methods they have employed
to provide for increased system safety in real-world conditions.
    In addition, the Voluntary Guidance encourages entities engaged in
testing and deployment to prepare and publicly disclose Voluntary
Safety Self-Assessments of their systems demonstrating their varied
approaches to achieving safety. The Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is
intended to communicate to the public (particularly States and
consumers) that entities are:
    (1) Considering the safety aspects of ADSs;
    (2) communicating and collaborating with DOT;
    (3) encouraging the self-establishment of industry safety norms for
ADSs; and
    (4) building public trust, acceptance, and confidence through
transparent testing and deployment of ADSs.
    It also allows companies an opportunity to showcase their approach
to safety, without needing to reveal proprietary intellectual property.
NHTSA expects much of the work associated with the consideration of the
12 safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance to be an extension of good
and safe engineering practices already in place within an entity,
therefore entities will have access to all the information needed to
craft a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment if they so choose. NHTSA
envisions the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments would contain concise
summary information on these practices.

Public Workshop Details

    With new information in the safety elements and a new means for
disclosing an assessment summary to the public provided in Automated
Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, NHTSA is holding a public
workshop to engage stakeholders and assist entities as they develop a
Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment as well as clarify and address
concerns for those entities looking to disclose such information to the
public.
    The public workshop will include representatives from entities
developing a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, States looking to review
Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments, members of the public interested in
reading the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments to understand the steps
taken to address the safety of ADSs, and other Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment users. The open discussion among these interested parties
will serve to assist in the development of the most broadly beneficial
Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. Discussion at the workshop will
include:
    (1) How entities might summarize efforts they already undertake in
addressing the safety elements provided in the Voluntary Guidance;
    (2) challenges entities face in developing their summary statements
for the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and the means to overcome
them;
    (3) information helpful to stakeholders looking to use the
Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment; and
    (4) methods by which an entity may publicly disclose the Voluntary
Safety Self-Assessment.
    A template of the types of summary information an entity might
provide in a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is provided below. The
example is being provided as an effort to offer assistance in the
development of a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and to guide
discussion during the public workshop. This template illustrates the
type of summary information that may be provided for the safety element
of Crashworthiness, just one of the 12 safety elements presented in the
Voluntary Guidance. The details in the template are based on a
fictitious vehicle and provided for illustration, guidance, and
discussion purposes only. This fictitious vehicle is one that has
received necessary exemptions from NHTSA. It is a Level 4 ride-share
vehicle with four seats and two large doors. We are providing one
safety element example for the template, however all safety elements
are open for discussion at the public workshop. Stakeholders are
encouraged to review this information and determine how this aligns
with their ideas regarding the development of a Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment.

Crashworthiness

Structural Integrity

     Summary of crash simulation scenarios, component testing,
and physical tests.
     Summary of bench marks for testing.

Protection of Occupants in the Vehicle

     Summary information about how the vehicle design leverages
industry best practices and internal standards for crashworthiness.
     If the vehicle contains a non-traditional seating
configuration, include summary information related to the following:
    [cir] Protection for the occupants expected to use the vehicle.
    [cir] Testing and countermeasures related to crash impact
protection and the impact directions considered.
    [cir] If appropriate, discussion of methods related to rollover
protection.
     If the vehicle will transport children (those under age
12), a summary of child passenger safety measures to address:
    [cir] Child occupant detection and accommodations;
    [cir] Car seat use: Anchors, tethers, designated seat locations;
and
    [cir] Booster seat use and designated seat locations.

Protection of Other Road Users

     Summary information of how the vehicle considers crash
forces from other road vehicles or the infrastructure.
     Summary information of how the vehicle seeks to mitigate
injuries to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
    The public workshop is formatted for active participation and open
discussion. The intention is to seek input from stakeholders to provide
the greatest assistance to entities to develop a Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment. NHTSA will begin the workshop with a presentation of the
safety elements included in the Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision
for Safety, the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment and its content, and
the template provided

in this notice. Participants should be prepared to discuss their
reaction to the template. Further discussion at the public workshop may
include other safety elements as well as public disclosure of the
Voluntary Assessment.
    NHTSA will conduct the public workshop informally; thus, technical
rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written
transcript of the workshop. You may make arrangements for copies of the
transcripts directly with the court reporter. The transcript will also
be posted in the docket when it becomes available.
    Should it be necessary to cancel the workshop due to inclement
weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to
notify registered participants.

Draft Workshop Agenda

9-10 a.m. Arrival/Check-In through Security
10-10:10 a.m. Welcome/Important Notices
10:10-10:30 a.m. NHTSA Presentation
10:30-12 a.m. Presentation by Stakeholder Representatives
12 a.m.-1 p.m. Lunch (not provided)
1-1:45 p.m. Open Discussion Regarding Challenges to Disclosure
1:45-2:30 p.m. Open Discussion Regarding Approaches to Public
Disclosure
2:30-2:50 p.m. Open Discussion
2:50-3 p.m. Closing Remarks/Adjourn

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 CFR
1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2017-22058 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Date:	July 13, 2016

To:	Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

From:	Leslie Pearce and Jeff Coburn

Subject:	DRAFT Meeting Record for July 12, 2016 meeting between
Representatives of Dominion Energy and Representatives of OAQPS (U.S.
EPA)

On July 12, 2016, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a
meeting with representatives of Dominion Energy (Dominion). The names
and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss the existing source oil and gas
information collection request (ICR) as it pertains to Dominion’s
assets.

	Dominion provided an overview of their operations stating that they
have 24,000 MW of power generation, 12,000 miles of transmission
pipelines, natural gas distribution operations in Ohio and West
Virginia, 930 BScf storage fields in Ohio and Pennsylvania, one
liquified natural gas import/export facility, five natural gas liquid
facilities, gathering and boosting facilities and a small amount of
production. Dominion will therefore be responding to the ICR for nearly
all applicable industry segments.

	Dominion inquired whether additional time would be provided to submit
comments. The EPA explained that it would be unlikely that additional
time would be provided.

	Dominion provided comments on several issues including:

Underground Storage:

On the ‘Equipment Leaks’ tab of the Part 2 detailed facility survey,
Dominion recommended that the component types listed should be
consistent with those in 40 CFR part 98 subpart W for the underground
storage industry segment if the intent was to collect fugitive leaks for
this segment. The EPA confirmed that the intent was to collect data for
equipment leaks from the underground storage segment and recommended
that Dominion include this in their submission of comments on the ICR.

Dominion requested confirmation that if a facility is subject to 40 CFR
part 98 subpart W and there are elements in the survey that overlap with
those reporting requirements, facilities will not have to complete those
portions of the surveys. The EPA confirmed that data reported to 40 CFR
part 98 subpart W would not have to be reported again in the ICR
surveys.

Dominion requested clarification regarding the applicability of the
‘Well Sites’ tab in the Part 2 detailed facility survey stating that
underground storage facilities have well site assets and applicable
data. The EPA stated that this tab is only applicable to the onshore
petroleum and natural gas production segment. Dominion suggested that
this tab be ‘blacked out’ if a segment other than onshore petroleum
and natural gas production is selected on the ‘Facility’ tab.

In discussions about the underground storage segment, the EPA stated
that it also intended to collect information for blowdowns from this
segment. Dominion suggested that the EPA clarify this intent in the
instructions or on the ‘Blowdowns’ tab.

Tanks/Separators

Dominion requested clarification between the terms tanks and separators
and whether the 10 bbl/day exemption that is present in 40 CFR part 98
subpart W applies to the information being collected in this ICR. The
EPA stated that it considers separators to typically precede tanks and
that tanks are the first atmospheric point. The EPA stated that there is
no threshold exemption for the ICR.

Dominion also inquired about the testing requirement for separators and
stated that the requirement will be burdensome for downstream operations
(i.e., transmission compression and underground storage facilities),
especially in consideration of the fact that the feed material at such
facilities is pipeline quality natural gas and thus the expected
emissions would not exhibit the same type of variability as upstream
emissions. Dominion requested that the EPA provide some type of burden
reduction for downstream segments relative to the testing requirements
such as an alternative means of measuring/estimating emissions or
requiring testing of only a percentage of the overall population of
facilities selected for the Part 2 survey. The EPA stated that Dominion
should include their suggestion in their submission of comments on the
ICR and that it would be important for any burden reduction to be
replicable, consistent, randomized and representative of the respective
segment.

Coverage of Facilities

Dominion asked that the EPA confirm that the Part 1 operator survey is
only applicable to the onshore petroleum and natural gas production
segment and the Part 2 detailed facility survey is only applicable to a
statistically selected subset of facilities. Dominion also inquired how
address lists for facilities will be compiled. The EPA confirmed
Dominion’s understanding of the applicability of the surveys and
stated that it plans to post the address list for each industry segment
to a website during the Office of Management and Budget comment period,
providing stakeholders with the opportunity to review and provide edits
to the address list.

Pneumatics

Dominion recommended that the terms for pneumatics be made consistent
with those in 40 CFR part 98 subpart W. They also stated that some of
the terms in the pneumatics tab were confusing because they mixed
function and operation of the devices. The EPA stated that the emission
factor categories used in 40 CFR part 98 subpart W were overly broad and
that the intent of the ICR is to gather more granular information to
refine this emission factor set. Dominion then suggested that
definitions of the types of pneumatics be provided.

Instructions

Dominion requested clarification regarding what aspects of the survey
required facilities to collect additional new information and what
portions of the survey are to be completed with best available
information. The EPA stated that the survey included statements where it
is expected that facilities obtain and report new data (i.e., separator
testing, equipment leak counts) and the remainder of the survey should
be completed with best available information. The EPA stated that
additional clarification will be added in the ‘Instructions’ tab to
make the intent clear.

Other

Dominion stated that the question in the Part 1 operator survey
regarding whether facilities are manned or unmanned should be considered
confidential business information because of security concerns.

Dominion also suggested that the question of whether the facility has
electricity be re-phrased to ask whether a site has sufficient
electricity to supply ancillary systems.

Attachment 1

Participants in July 12 2016, 2016 Dominion Energy Meeting

Dominion Energy Representatives

Lisa Beal

Alice Prior

Anand Yegnan

U.S. EPA Representatives

Angie Carey

Amy Hambrick

Jodi Howard

Penny Lassiter

Brenda Shine

Jonathan Witt

RTI International (EPA Contractor)

Jeff Coburn

Leslie Pearce

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  4


collection burden under the PRA for the EMACT

standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, or Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. We are
proposing certain technical revisions, including new electronic
reporting provisions for the PRD and emergency flaring work practice
standards, but the technical revisions would not result in changes to
the information collection burden. The reporting of the current PRD and
emergency flaring data elements currently are typed up in a word
processor and/or spreadsheet software and included in the submission to
the delegated state authority and/or the EPA Regional Office. The
proposed amendments would instead require facilities to submit the work
practice related data using an EPA-provided spreadsheet template
electronically through CEDRI. These data would not be expected to also
be included in a facility's submission to the delegated state authority
and/or EPA Regional Office, so no duplication is expected. The proposed
amendments to the mode of reporting of the work practice related data
are not expected to change the current burden under the PRA and we have
not revised the information collection request (ICR) for the existing
rules. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations at: 40 CFR part 63,
subpart YY, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0489; 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0539; 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533;
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and has assigned OMB control number
2060-0340.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC, YY, EEEE, and FFFF
would only minimally change the existing requirements for all entities.
There could be minor costs for affected facilities related to reading
the proposed rule, making minor updates to operating procedures in some
limited cases, and making minor adjustments to reporting systems. A few
proposed revisions provide slightly greater flexibility and could yield
minor cost savings. Any potential costs or cost savings are expected to
be negligible.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the annual cost does
not exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial new direct effects
on tribal governments, 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the EMACT standards, MON, OLD NESHAP, and
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards
Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted
searches for: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 5, 18,
21, 22, 25, 25A, 27, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Methods
301, 316 and 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and EPA Methods 602 and
624 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A.
    No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for any
of the listed methods. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method,
the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method.
    After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that
the 20 candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants
or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not
be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, or validation
data, or due to other important technical and policy considerations.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: for Ethylene
Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries, which is
available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such
standards in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
    Because the proposed revisions are not expected to impact
emissions, the EPA believes that this action is not likely to change
existing disproportionate and adverse effects on

people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. See
section IV.F of this preamble for related information regarding
environmental justice analyses.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-07627 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P