[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32100]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-67-000]

Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on May 22, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 and 306
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e) and Rule 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Linden VFT, LLC (Complainant),
filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or
Respondent), alleging that the Respondent's proposed cost allocations
for projects resulting from PJM's 2013 Regional Transmission Expansion
Plan, including Public Service Electric and Gas Company upgrades, are
unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, and preferential, as more
fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2015.

    Dated: May 27, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13735 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52184-52187]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0061; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-029-AD;
Amendment 39-17949; AD 2014-16-25]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-06-12 for
certain Airbus Model A330-200 and A330-300 airplanes. This new AD
reduces the compliance times for reinforcing the structure of the
center fuselage. This AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage
tolerance evaluation that revealed the compliance time for an existing
reinforcement of the fuselage has to be reduced. We are issuing this AD
to prevent fatigue cracking of the fuselage, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 8, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 8,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0061; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2007-06-12, Amendment 39-14993 (72 FR 12555,
March 16, 2007). AD 2007-06-12 applied to certain Airbus Model A330-200
and A330-300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11016).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0016, dated January 16, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A330-200 and A330-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the fatigue tests (EF2) of the Airbus A330 test fuselage,
initiation and development of cracks were evidenced at the
circumferential joint of frame 53.3.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a reduction in
the structural integrity of the fuselage.
    EASA issued AD 2006-0266 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/
easaad20060266Superseded.pdf/
AD2006-02661), which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-
06-12, Amendment 39-14993 (72 FR 12555, March 16, 2007)], which took
over the requirements of Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
L'aviation Civile [DGAC] France AD F-2003-415 for A330-300 pre-mod
41652S11819, and required reinforcement of the circumferential joint
of frame 53.3 by application of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-
53-3143 on A330-300 post modification 41652S11819 and pre-mod 49202,
and all A330-200 pre-mod 49202 in order to improve the fatigue life.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, in the frame of a new fatigue
and damage tolerance evaluation taking into account the aeroplane
utilisation, the thresholds for the reinforcement were reassessed
and the conclusion is that some thresholds must be reduced.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2006-0266, which is superseded, and requires
reinforcement of structure of the centre fuselage at the upper
circumferential joint of frame 53.3 within the new thresholds.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0061-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 11016, February 27,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 11016, February 27, 2014), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 11016, February 27,
2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
an NPRM

having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26,
2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed wording,
being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus
messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective
actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service
bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 11016, February 27, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 11016, February 27, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate that it will take about 327 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $17,850 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be up to $410,805, or up to $45,645 per product.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0061; 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 AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-06-12, Amendment 39-14993 (72 FR 12555, March 16, 2007), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-16-25 Airbus: Amendment 39-17949. Docket No. FAA-2014-0061;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-029-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 8, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-06-12, Amendment 39-14993 (72 FR 12555,
March 16, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and
-243 airplanes; and Model A330-301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on
which Airbus Modification 49202 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluation that concluded the compliance time for an existing
reinforcement of the fuselage has to be reduced. We are issuing this
AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the fuselage, which could result
in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation for Model A330-300 Series Airplanes

    For Airbus Model A330-301, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-
341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus
Modification 41652S11819 has been incorporated in production: At the
time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever
occurs later, install butt straps at FR53.3 on the fuselage skin
between left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) stringer (STR) 13, and do
all related investigative and corrective actions before further
flight. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, do all
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 02, including Appendix 01,
dated December 7, 2011.
    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes with a short-range mission as specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 02, including
Appendix 01, dated December 7, 2011: Within 15,300 flight cycles or
46,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the first flight
of the airplane.
    (ii) For airplanes with a long-range mission as specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 02, including
Appendix 01, dated December 7, 2011: Within 13,200 flight cycles or
79,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the first flight
of the airplane.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, but
not to exceed 14,700 total flight cycles or 51,400 total flight
hours, whichever occurs earlier.

(h) Corrective Actions

    For Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -
343 airplanes, except those on which Airbus Modification 41652S11819
has been incorporated in production: If any crack is detected during
the related investigative actions (rototest) required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(i) Installation for Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes

    For airplanes specified in paragraph (c) of this AD on which
Airbus Modification 41652S11819 has been embodied in production: At
the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD,
whichever occurs later, install butt straps at FR53.3 on the
fuselage skin between LH and RH STR13; and do all related
investigative and other specified actions before further flight, as
applicable. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 05,
dated May 29, 2012, including Appendix 1; except, if any crack is
detected during a related investigative action (rototest), before
further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (1) At the applicable times specified in the ``threshold''
column of the table in 1.E. ``Compliance'' of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated May
29, 2012. Where paragraph 1.E. ``Compliance'' of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 05, dated May 29, 2012, specifies a
time in the ``threshold'' column, this AD requires compliance within
the corresponding times after the first flight of the airplane.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, but
not to exceed 17,600 total flight cycles or 61,600 total flight
hours, whichever occurs earlier.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-
3127, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated November 21, 2003,
which was incorporated by reference in AD 2005-20-07, Amendment 39-
14300 (70 FR 57732, October 4, 2005).
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using any service information specified in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(v) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, including Appendix 01,
dated December 24, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated June 29, 2006, which was incorporated
by reference in AD 2007-06-12, Amendment 39-14993 (72 FR 12555,
March 16, 2007).
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 02,
including Appendix 01, dated August 31, 2010, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 03,
including Appendix 01, dated March 3, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 04, including
Appendix 01, dated December 6, 2011, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2007-06-12, Amendment 39-
14993 (72 FR 12555, March 16, 2007), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0016, dated January 16,
2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0061-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3127, Revision 02, dated
December 7, 2011, including Appendix 01.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3143, Revision 05, dated
May 29, 2012, including Appendix 01.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2014.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19725 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


January 30, 2009

Answers to EPA HSRB Questions on Spatial Repellents

Provided by Daniel Strickman, Ph.D.

USDA Agricultural Research Service

National Program Leader, Veterinary, Medical, and Urban Entomology

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
These answers are given from the professional estimation of the author
and do not intend to represent the position or policy of USDA.

Environmental Issues

1. What are the environmental (temperature, wind, time of day, humidity,
proximity to water/plants, size and type of space) and human factors
(height/weight; gender, age, ethnicity, density of humans in space) that
can affect insect behavior and repellent efficacy relevant to space
treatment studies?

Environmental factors have a strong effect on avidity of biting
arthropods. The effects will depend greatly on the species of arthropod.
For the best known arthropods, the parameters of maximum avidity are
known and could be replicated in the lab or sought in the field.  Also,
use of controls will assure adequate avidity has been achieved.  One
environmental factor that is particularly important to the function of
most spatial repellents is wind.  Even light air movement will affect
performance of products that are based on dispersal of a chemical in a
large volume of air.

Humans vary a great deal in attractiveness to biting arthropods. This
variation is affected by gender and diet, but these relationships are
not well understood.  Conservatively, the amount of variation is
four-fold (attracts four time more mosquitoes) and translates to
approximately 25% decrease in duration of DEET topical repellent.
Presumably, this could affect performance of behavior-altering active
ingredients but not that of lethal active ingredients.

2. What factors need to be considered for test spaces with respect to
size of area in which the test is conducted? How is the most appropriate
test area determined?

The test area should exceed the label claim for area protected. An ideal
test would evaluate the area protected by measuring the occurrence of
pests across a transect.

3. Does the number of human subjects within testing environments of
different sizes affect insect activity? Does the number of subjects in a
given area affect product efficacy or the measurement of product
efficacy?

In general, results from field tests are unaffected by the number of
subjects as long as the density of pests is sufficient. Often, the local
population of pests is so high that additional traps or subjects do not
affect results from each device or person. In the laboratory or large
cage trials, where populations are limited and controlled, additional
traps or human bait subjects might reduce the number collected by each
trap or person.

4. Are there any other special considerations regarding insect behavior
in such studies that require inclusion in protocols?

If the product affects a specific behavior or a particular odorant
receptor, then the behavioral status of the pest may affect performance.
 For example, if a chemical blocks a carbon dioxide receptor but the
pest is not seeking a blood meal, then the product may appear to fail
(e.g., pest goes through the repellent to a light trap) even though it
would work well for its purpose (to prevent bites).

Statistics and Study Design

1. How is the location of open spaces typically selected? How many
different or similar types of sites are appropriate to assess
generalizability?

Locations are usually selected for the species and abundance of the
pest. There is a danger that sites with low numbers of pests will be
selected intentionally to make the product look more effective. In
practice, there is probably a greater tendency to choose sites with a
large number of pests in order to reduce the number of trials required
in order to attain statistical significance.

The location should also be typical of the intended use site. For
example, a mosquito coil or candle would be appropriately tested on an
actual patio representing typical use site. If the product is registered
for outdoor use only, it should be tested outdoors in a field or
semi-field (large cage and/or intentional release of pests) situation.

The number of different sites is not as important as the number of kinds
of pests in order to achieve generalizable results. These kinds of
products are also very sensitive to wind, which might influence the
number of trials required and selection of weather conditions.

What are common spatial dispensing devices? How are they related to the
nature of the product dispensed (e.g., gas, suspended liquid, smoke)?
What are design or measurement challenges for different dispensing
devices and products?

Current products registered in the US include candles, mosquito coils,
heated paper mat devices, reservoirs of active ingredient with a fan
above them, granular products impregnated with active ingredients,
liquid sprays, and no-pest strips.  All attempt to suspend an active
ingredient in the air, creating a gaseous or fine particle barrier
between the human and the pests, or to create a bubble of active
ingredient around the human. Only the no-pest strip is currently
registered for indoor use. The product is designed to distribute the
active ingredient at an even rate over a defined period of time. Heated
devices probably deliver the most constant rate, since they are
independent of ambient temperature. Passive systems like granules,
sprays, and no-pest strips would release more active ingredient during
higher temperatures and when there is more wind. These factors will make
evaluation of duration more difficult.

3. What type of dosimetry data is required to determine amount of
product application used in testing? How is discharge time determined?
What are the relative design merits of the experimenter or subject
discharging the repellent?

For the most part, the rate of release from spatial repellent products
is not adjustable. Where the amount applied can be adjusted or the
number of devices used simultaneously can be changed, the tests should
follow proposed label rates. Discharge time is not a factor for
currently designed devices. Installation and discharge by the
experimenter may have a small advantage over that by the subject in
order to reduce trial to trial variation.

4. How are outcomes measured in these studies? How are insect knockdown
and mortality effects measured? Are both knockdown and landings/bites
usually measured in the same study? What is the difference in knockdowns
vs. bites in terms of information regarding product
efficacy/effectiveness?

 There is no standard method of measuring outcome. Mosquito coils were
most commonly evaluated by measuring knockdown in cages, but this is
probably inappropriate. The purpose of spatial repellents is to
interrupt the pest on its way toward a host and that is what should be
measured. A test of movement toward a host or attractant should be
sufficient, eliminating the need to expose subjects to biting. An
example would be current trials at USDA ARS Gainesville testing efficacy
of proprietary devices inside a tent; about 18 small traps inside the
tent to detect distribution under treated and untreated conditions; each
trial is conducted with tent inside large cage with known number of
mosquitoes.

5. What is the difference with respect to measurement in assessing
efficacy of the active ingredient and effectiveness of the formulation?

The purpose of these tests is to compare or document products rather
than active ingredients. What is more, formulation is likely to have a
large influence on effectiveness. Therefore, tests of non-formulated
active ingredients would be largely irrelevant.

Sample Size and Statistics

1. Depending on the outcome measure, what are best practices with
respect to human sample size? What is the sample size norm in the field?
How is determination of sample size related to square feet of test area?
What is the best way to determine power for these studies?

 Psychodidae) and Ochlerotatus caspius (Diptera: Culicidae) in
Sanlıurfa Province, Turkey, J. Med. Entomol., 40, 930, 2003.

R. A. Wirtz, J. D. Turrentine, Jr., and L. C. Rutledge, Mosquito area
repellents: Laboratory testing of candidate materials against Aedes
aegypti, Mosq. News, 40, 432, 1980.

R. A. Wirtz, J. D. Turrentine, Jr., and R. C. Fox, Area repellents for
mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae): identification of the active
ingredients in a petroleum oil fraction, J. Med. Entomol., 18, 126,
1981.

2. What are best practices with respect to statistical analysis?  How is
censored data handled?

I am not aware of any best practices. Please refer to the book chapter.

3. What are the pros and cons of various endpoints (e.g. ending the
study after a set number of hours, waiting until the first landing/bite,
other) to assess product efficacy (e.g. to meet assumptions for
appropriate statistical analyses)?

Since human exposure to bites is not necessary, there is no reason not
to test products to failure in order to develop a complete chronological
curve of effectiveness. Many of these products do not achieve complete
protection, implying that the best measure is a profile of percentage
repellency over the period of time to complete failure.

Human Subjects

1. Why are human subjects necessary for such studies if the outcome
measures are knockdowns or mortality?

Human subjects are not necessary unless the product is designed to
disrupt particular insect behaviors. If humans are needed as bait, they
do not need to be exposed to any bites. Knockdown and mortality are not
the best measures of effectiveness. Even with a lethal ingredient like
transfluthrin or allethrin, a certain number of mosquitoes at low
dosages will probably be stopped from approaching a host or trap even
though they are not killed (true repellency); therefore measuring only
mortality underestimates benefit.

2. What are the potential risks to treated subjects (e.g. inhalation,
dermal effects)?  What are exclusion criteria in subject selection to
avoid such risks?   How is the degree of risk related to dosage,
ingredient, formulations, and aerosol pressure?

The risk of the product itself to the subject should be minimal and
acceptable based on toxicological evaluations by EPA. Very basically,
safety is determined by studies of exposure and risk. Risk is determined
by a large battery of acute and chronic tox tests required by EPA. EPA
makes a judgment whether the intended use exposes the public to a
significant risk, with appropriate safety factors. These evaluations are
the foundation of safe use of pesticides in the US.

3. What is the methodological rationale for continuous versus
intermittent exposure? How does human risk differ for these types of
exposures?  Will exposure start at the beginning of the test period
immediately after release of the product?

Where humans are used as bait, there should be no additional risk from
continuous exposure. The most accurate results would be obtained from
studies with continuous exposure because the products are designed for
continuous use during the protection time claimed. These studies would
require continuous or interval counts of pests as they fly into a screen
trap surrounding the human bait. These approaches do not work for
topical repellents because the distances over which they work are so
small; whereas, spatial repellents are intended to work over a large
area.

4. If the test agent has properties to repel or destroy an insect, what
is the relationship (if any) to a related mechanism of action to humans?

Ù

Ú

7

8

 h…

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  5


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14471]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0157 (formerly 2007N-0105)]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Mental Models Study of Food
Terrorism Risk Awareness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Mental Models Study of Food
Terrorism Risk Awareness'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 24, 2007 (72
FR 40309), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0618.
The approval expires on February 28, 2011. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: March 10, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-5361 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 54344]
[DOCID:fr07se10-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-E-0048]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; EFFIENT

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for EFFIENT and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Beverly Friedman, Office of
Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product EFFIENT
(Prasugrel Hydrochloride). EFFIENT is a platelet inhibitor indicated
for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events (including stent
thrombosis) in patients with acute coronary syndrome who are to be
managed with percutaneous coronary intervention. Subsequent to this
approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term
restoration application for EFFIENT (U.S. Patent No. 5,288,726) from
Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., and UBE Industries, Ltd., and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated
March 24, 2010, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this
human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that
the approval of EFFIENT represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark
Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
EFFIENT is 2,795 days. Of this time, 2,232 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 563 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
November 16, 2001. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date
the investigational new drug application became effective was on
November 16, 2001.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act: December 26,
2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for EFFIENT (NDA 22-307) was submitted on December
26, 2007.
    3. The date the application was approved: July 10, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-307 was approved on July 10,
2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,679 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by November 8, 2010. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by March 7, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Comments and petitions that have not been
made publicly available on regulations.gov may be viewed in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

    Dated: August 13, 2010.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2010-22234 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 9, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-12077

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Aloha Airlines, Inc.          filed   1/29/2004  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in
Canada.

Applicant rep:   Marshall S. Sinick,<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:
Gerald Caolo,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The above action was effective when taken:  April 9, 2004, through
April 9, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Canada.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department
of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other
U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United
States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

08/2003

 Aloha is providing service between Honolulu and Vancouver.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34366]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-107-000.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop
Hill Energy III LLC, Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC, California Ridge
Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand
Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV
LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County
Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy
LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind
Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC,
Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection L, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy
LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech
Ridge Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-108-000.
    Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: FPA Section 203 Application of Copper Mountain Solar
2, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-109-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Mesquite Solar 1, LLC's FPA Section 203 Application.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1538-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Small Generator Interconnection Agreement Between NEP
and Lawrence Hydroelectric to be effective 2/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1539-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 05-22-2013 SA 738 ATC-Wisconsin Amend GIA to be
effective 5/23/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130522-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1540-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Original SA No. 3043 in
Docket No. ER11-4424-000 to be effective 4/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1541-000.
    Applicants: Campo Verde Solar, LLC.
    Description: Application and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be
effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1542-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Cleco
Power LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
05-23-13 Cleco Attach O to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1543-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Submission of Notice of Cancellation of Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130523-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/13.

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

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13582 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1209-1210]
[DOCID:fr12ja09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9988-015]

Augusta Canal Authority; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

January 6, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the 2.125-
megawatt King Mill Project, located on the Augusta Canal in

Richmond County, Augusta, Georgia, and issued an Environmental
Assessment (EA) on December 11, 2008. In the EA, Commission staff
analyze the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project
and conclude that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Comments on the EA should be filed within 30 days from the issuance
date of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix King Mill Project No. 9988-015 to
all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the eFiling link. For further information, contact Sarah
Florentino at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-332 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24906-24909]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0176]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix, Season 3 Race Event,
San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco, CA in support of the San Francisco Sail Grand Prix, Season 3
race periods. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on these navigable waters and to ensure the safety
of mariners transiting the area from the dangers associated with high-
speed sailing vessels participating in the Sail Grand Prix race event.
This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring, blocking, or loitering within the event
area adjacent to the city of San Francisco waterfront near the Golden
Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island, unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from May 4, 2023, through May 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0176 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call, or email Lieutenant Anthony I. Solares, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
San Francisco Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 19, 2022, the Silverback Pacific Company notified the
Coast Guard of an intention to conduct the ``Sail Grand Prix, Season
3'' in the San Francisco Bay. In response, on March 7, 2023, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Special
Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix, Season 3 Race Event; San Francisco,
CA'' (88 FR 14309). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this proposed
sailing race. During the comment period that ended April 7, 2023, we
received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because in order to
ensure the public and participant's safety we must establish the
special local regulation before commencement of the Sail Grand Prix
race activities starting May 4, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041. The COTP San Francisco has determined this special local
regulation to be necessary to keep persons and vessels away from the
sailing race vessels, which exhibit unpredictable maneuverability and
have demonstrated a likelihood during the simulation of racing
scenarios for capsizing. This special local regulation will help
prevent injuries and property damage that may be caused upon impact
with these fast-moving vessels. The provisions of this temporary
Special Local Regulation will not exempt racing vessels from any
Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, including Nautical Rules
of the Road.
    Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has
authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed
necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), the Commander of Coast Guard District 11
has delegated to the COTP San Francisco the responsibility of issuing
such regulations.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM, which was
published March 7, 2023. In the Discussion of the Proposed Rule section
of the NPRM, we incorrectly stated the proposed rule would establish a
waterfront passage area, which was not included further in the
Discussion or the regulatory text. This was added in error. The Coast
Guard does not intend to establish a waterfront passage area within
this special local regulation. There are no changes in the regulatory
text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a special local regulation associated with
the Sail Grand Prix race event from noon to 5:30 p.m. each day from May
4, 2023, through May 7, 2023. The areas regulated by this special local
regulation will be east of the Golden Gate Bridge, south of Alcatraz
Island, west of Treasure Island, and in the vicinity of the city of San
Francisco waterfront. The Coast Guard will establish an Official
Practice Box Area, an Official Race Box Area, and a Spectator Area. An
image of these proposed regulated areas may be found in the docket. The
special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the San
Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within the area formed by
connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following
order: 37[deg]48'24.3'' N, 122[deg]27'53.5'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'15.6'' N, 122[deg]27'58.1'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28.9'' N,
122[deg]25'52.1'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'7.5'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'42'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W; thence to
37[deg]48'30.5'' N, 122[deg]26'22.6'' W; thence along the shore to
37[deg]48'26.9'' N, 122[deg]26'50.5'' W and thence to the point of
beginning.
    Located within this footprint, there will be three separate
regulated areas: Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area; Zone
``B'', the Official Race Box Area; and Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area.
    Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area, will be marked by
colored visual markers. The position of these markers will be specified
via Local Notice to Mariners at least two weeks prior to the event and
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least seven days prior to the
event. Zone ``A'' will be used by the race and support vessels during
the official practice period on May 4, 2023, and May 5, 2023. Zone
``A'', the Official Practice Box Area, will be enforced during the
official practices from noon to 5:30 p.m. on May 4, 2023, and from noon
to 5:30 p.m. on May 5, 2023, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. Excluding the public from entering Zone ``A'' is necessary to
provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels
within this area.
    Zone ``B'', the Official Race Box Area, will be marked by 12 or
more colored visual markers. The position of these markers would be
confirmed via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least three days prior to
the event. Only designated Sail Grand Prix race, support, and VIP
vessels would be permitted to enter Zone ``B.'' Zone ``B,'' the
Official Race Box Area, will be enforced during the official races from
noon to 5:30 p.m. on May 6, 2023, and from noon to 5:30 p.m. on May 7,
2023. Because of the hazards posed by the sailing competition,
excluding non-race vessel traffic from Zone ``B'' is necessary to
provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels
within this area.
    Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area, will be within the special local
regulation area designated in paragraph (a) and outside of Zone ``B'',
the Official Race Box Area. Zone ``C'' will be defined by latitude and
longitude points per Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Zone ``C'' will be
managed by marine event sponsor officials. Vessels will be prohibited
from anchoring within the confines of Zone ``C.''
    The duration of the establishment of the special local regulation
is intended to ensure the safety of vessels in these navigable waters
during the scheduled practice and race periods. This temporary special
local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic adjacent to
the city of San Francisco waterfront in the vicinity of the Golden Gate
Bridge and Alcatraz Island and prohibit vessels and persons not
participating in the race event from entering the dedicated race area.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
locations, and duration of the special local regulation. With this
special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to maintain
commercial access to the ports through an alternate vessel traffic
management scheme. The special local regulation is limited in duration
and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area with designated
and adequate space for transiting vessels to pass when permitted by the
COTP or a designated representative. In addition, although this rule
restricts access to the waters encompassed by the special local
regulation, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the
local waterway users will be notified in advance via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the special local regulation will result
in minimal impact. Therefore, mariners will be able to plan and transit
outside of the periods of enforcement of the special local regulation,
or alternatively, they will be able to transit the city of San
Francisco Waterfront with approval from the COTP or designated
representative. The entities most likely to be affected are commercial
vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of commercial vessels and
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing for a
limited duration. This special local regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the reasons stated in Section V.A above. When the special local
regulation is in effect, vessel traffic can safely pass around the
regulated area. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this
special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
special local regulation that will create regulated areas of limited
size and duration that includes defined regulated areas for vessel
traffic to pass. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T11-0122 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T11-0122  Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix 2022 Race
Event, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to all
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom,
encompassed by a line connecting the following latitude and longitude
points, beginning at 37[deg]48'24.3'' N, 122[deg]27'53.5'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'15.6'' N, 122[deg]27'58.1'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28.9'' N,
122[deg]25'52.1'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'7.5'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'42'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W; thence to
37[deg]48'30.5'' N, 122[deg]26'22.6'' W; thence along shore to
37[deg]48'26.9'' N, 122[deg]26'50.5'' W and thence to the point of
beginning.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) ``Designated Representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer on a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP)
in the enforcement of the special local regulation.
    (2) Zone ``A'' means the Official Practice Box Area. This zone will
encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface
to bottom, within the area formed by connecting the following latitude
and longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]49'19'' N,
122[deg]27'19'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28'' N, 122[deg]25'52'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'40.9'' N, 122[deg]25'43.6'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'7.5'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W and thence to the point of
beginning. These coordinates are the current projected position for the
Official Practice Box Area and will also be announced via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
    (3) Zone ``B'' means the Official Race Box Area, which will be
marked by 12 or more colored visual markers within the special
regulation area designated in paragraph (a). The position of these
markers will be specified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least
three days prior to the event.
    (4) Zone ``C'' means the Spectator Area, which is within the
special local regulation area designated in paragraph (a) and outside
of Zone ``B,'' the Official Race Box Area. Zone ``C'' will be defined
by latitude and longitude points via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
will be managed by marine event sponsor officials. Vessels shall not
anchor within the confines of Zone ``C.''
    (c) Special Local Regulation. The following regulations apply
between noon and 5:30 p.m. on the Sail Grand Prix official practice and
race days.
    (1) Only support and race vessels will be authorized by the COTP or
designated representative to enter Zone ``B'' during the race event.
Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate with Zone ``A'' or Zone
``B'' must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Persons and vessels may request permission to
transit Zone ``A'' on VHF-23A.
    (2) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must maneuver as directed by
the COTP or designated representative. When hailed or signaled by the
COTP or designated representative by a succession of sharp, short
signals by whistle or horn, the hailed vessel must come to an immediate
stop and comply with the lawful direction issued. Failure to comply
with a lawful direction may result in additional operating
restrictions, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (3) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must operate at safe speeds,
which will create minimal wake.
    (4) Vessels with approval from COTP or designated representative to
transit through the associated event zones shall maintain headway and
not loiter or anchor within the confines of the regulated area.
    (5) Rafting and anchoring of vessels is prohibited within the
regulated area.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This special local regulation will be
enforced for the official practices and race events from noon to 5:30
p.m. each day from May 4, 2023, through May 7, 2023. At least 24 hours
in advance of the official practice and race events commencing on May
4, 2023, the COTP will notify the maritime community of periods during
which these zones will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
in writing via the Coast Guard Boating Public Safety Notice.

    Dated: April 18, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-08662 Filed 4-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P