[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33576-33579]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11791]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0063]

Pipeline Safety: Potential for Damage to Pipeline Facilities
Caused by Earth Movement and Other Geological Hazards

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of updated advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this updated advisory bulletin to remind
owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, including
supercritical carbon dioxide pipelines, of the potential for damage to
those pipeline facilities caused by earth movement in variable, steep,
and rugged terrain and terrain with varied or changing subsurface
geological conditions. Additionally, changing weather patterns due to
climate change, including increased rainfall and higher temperatures,
may impact soil stability in areas that have historically been stable.
These phenomena can pose a threat to the integrity of pipeline
facilities if those threats are not identified and mitigated. Owners
and operators should consider monitoring geological and environmental
conditions, including changing weather patterns, in proximity to their
facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary McDaniel at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The purpose of this updated advisory bulletin is to remind owners
and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, particularly those
with facilities located onshore or in inland waters, about the serious
safety-related issues that can result from earth movement and other
geological hazards. Additionally, changing weather patterns due to
climate change may result in heavier than normal rainfall and increased
temperatures causing soil saturation and flooding or soil erosion.
Either phenomenon may adversely impact the stability of soil
surrounding or supporting nearby pipeline facilities. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) is a resource for pipeline owners and
operators in evaluating earth movement vulnerabilities of pipeline
facilities.
    Gas and hazardous liquid pipelines are required to be designed to
withstand external loads including those that may be imposed by
geological forces. Specifically, gas pipelines must be designed in
accordance with 49 CFR 192.103 and hazardous liquid pipelines must be
designed in accordance with 49 CFR 195.110. To comply with these
regulations, the design of new pipelines, including repairs or
replacement, must consider the load that may be imposed by geological
forces.
    Once operational, Sec.  192.317(a) states that for gas transmission
and part 192-regulated gathering pipelines ``[t]he operator must take
all practicable steps to protect each transmission line or main from
washouts, floods, unstable soil, landslides, or other hazards that may
cause the pipeline to move or to sustain abnormal loads. In addition,
the operator must take all practicable steps to protect offshore
pipelines from damage by mudslides, water currents, hurricanes, ship
anchors, and fishing operations.'' This advisory bulletin addresses
those protective requirements associated with damage caused by
geological factors.
    In addition, Sec.  192.705 requires operators of gas transmission
lines, and applicable gas gathering lines, to have a patrol program to
observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way
for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors
affecting safety and operation. The frequency of these patrols must be
based upon the size of the line, operating pressures, class locations,
terrain, seasonal weather conditions, and other relevant factors. One
of the primary reasons for this patrol requirement is to monitor
geological movement, both slowly occurring and acute changes, which may
affect the current or future safe operation of the pipeline.
    Furthermore, for applicable gas pipelines Sec.  192.613(a) states
that ``each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance
of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning
changes in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion,
substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements, and other
unusual operating and maintenance conditions.'' Section 192.613(b)
further states that ``[i]f a segment of pipeline is determined to be in
unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator
shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the segment
involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out,
reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with
Sec.  192.619(a) and (b).''
    For hazardous liquid pipelines, Sec.  195.401(b)(1) states that
``[w]henever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely
affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct the
condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of
such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or
property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the system
until it has corrected the unsafe condition.'' Section 195.401(b)(2)
further states that ``[w]hen an operator discovers a condition on a
pipeline covered under [the integrity management requirements in] Sec.
195.452, the operator must correct the condition as prescribed in Sec.
195.452(h).'' Land movement, soil instability due to saturation, severe
flooding, river scour, and river channel migration are the types of
conditions that can adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline
and require corrective action under Sec. Sec.  192.613(a) and
195.401(b). Additional guidance for identifying risk factors and
mitigating natural force

hazards on pipeline segments that could affect high consequence areas,
are outlined in Appendix C, section I, subsection B, to part 195.
    PHMSA integrity management regulations require operators to take
additional preventative and mitigative measures to prevent, and to
mitigate the consequences of, failures on gas transmission lines in
high consequence areas (Sec.  192.935) and hazardous liquid pipelines
that are in or which could affect a high consequence area (Sec.
195.452(i)). An operator must base the additional measures on the
threats the operator has identified for each pipeline segment. If an
operator determines there is a threat to the pipeline, such as outside
force damage (e.g., earth movement or floods), the operator must take
steps to prevent a failure and to minimize the consequences of a
failure under these regulations.
    PHMSA is aware of recent earth movement and other geological-
related incidents and accidents and safety-related conditions
throughout the country. Some of the more notable events, including
those discussed in a prior advisory bulletin (ADB-2019-02; 84 FR 18919,
05/02/2019) are briefly described below:
     On March 11, 2022, a 22-inch hazardous liquid pipeline
spilled 3,900 barrels of crude oil adjacent to the Cahokia Creek
approximately 15 miles east of St. Louis, Missouri. Preliminary
information indicates land movement may have contributed to this
failure. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation
into the cause continues as of the date of this notice.
     On May 30, 2021, a hazardous liquid pipeline spilled 640
barrels of gasoline in Greens Bayou affecting high consequence areas
near Houston, Texas. The operator's reported cause indicated earth
movement/progressive ground movement over time on a bayou bank.
     On February 19, 2021, 22,318 one thousand cubic feet \1\
(Mcf) of natural gas was released from a Type A gathering pipeline
system in Belmont, Ohio. A third-party subject matter expert determined
the proximate cause of this incident was land movement, or slip, that
exerted force on the pipe causing a circumferential crack in an area
where evidence of stress corrosion cracking and general corrosion were
found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mcf stands for one thousand cubic feet. The ``M'' is
representative of the roman numeral for one thousand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On December 23, 2020, 4,450 Mcf natural gas was released
from a gas distribution main line in the City of Newport News,
Virginia. The operator report indicated that the apparent cause was
pipe stress created by ground settlement which caused misalignment of a
flange resulting in a pinhole leak on gasket.
     On November 19, 2020, a pipeline spilled 17.50 barrels of
crude oil east of I-5 in Kern, California during routine start-up. A
metallurgical analysis determined the root cause to be related to
external factors (i.e., historical land movement, terrain, and cyclic
weather patterns around this pipeline segment). There is a history of
land movement in the area, all of which contributed to unintentional
bending of the pipeline causing the circumferential cracking found at
the leak site.
     On October 4, 2020, an intrastate gas transmission
pipeline in Goodrich, Texas released 118,724 Mcf of natural gas below
the Trinity River. While no definitive root cause was determined, the
operator used the geological, meteorological, site-gathered information
and historical data in its computer modeling and identified earth
movement of the soil surrounding the pipe as the most plausible cause
of the rupture. Circumferential stress corrosion cracking may have been
a contributing factor to the failure.
     On May 19, 2020, 447 Mcf was released from a gas
distribution main pipeline in Edenville Township, Michigan due to heavy
rain fall. An investigation confirmed a 4-inch steel pipeline was
severed when significant flooding in the area caused a road washout/
scouring.
     On May 4, 2020, a 30-inch natural gas pipeline ruptured
and ignited near Hillsboro, Kentucky. Preliminary information indicates
land movement may have contributed to this failure. The NTSB
investigation into the cause continues as of the date of this notice.
     On February 22, 2020, a carbon dioxide pipeline failed
approximately one mile southeast of Satartia, Mississippi, releasing
approximately 30,000 barrels of liquid carbon dioxide that immediately
began to vaporize at atmospheric conditions. The pipeline failed on a
steep embankment which had subsided adjacent to a local highway. Heavy
rains are believed to have triggered a landslide, which created axial
strain on the pipeline and resulted in a full circumferential girth
weld failure.
     On January 29, 2019, a pipeline ruptured near the town of
Lumberport in Harrison County, West Virginia. The rupture was located
at a girth weld of an elbow on the 12-inch interstate pipeline. The
root cause investigation concluded that a landslide about 150 yards
from the rupture moved the pipeline approximately 10 feet from its
original location causing excessive stress on the pipe resulting in the
rupture.
     On January 21, 2019, a 30-inch natural gas pipeline
ruptured and ignited near Summerfield, Ohio. A metallurgical analysis
indicates a girth weld failed due to ductile overload from a
longitudinal tensile or bending force, likely from land movement.
     On June 7, 2018, a 36-inch pipeline ruptured in a rural,
mountainous area near Moundsville, West Virginia, resulting in the
release of approximately 165,000 Mcf of natural gas. According to a
metallurgical analysis, the rupture was caused by earth movement on the
right-of-way due to a single overload event. Overloading of the
pipeline likely resulted from a series of lateral displacements with
accompanying bending.
     On April 30, 2018, an 8-inch intrastate pipeline failed in
a remote mountainous region of Marshall County, West Virginia resulting
in the release of 2,658 barrels of propane. The failure was caused by
lateral movement of the pipeline due to earth movement along the right-
of-way.
     On January 31, 2018, a 24-inch interstate pipeline
ruptured near the city of Summerfield, Ohio releasing approximately
23,500 Mcf of natural gas in a rural forested area. A root cause
analysis concluded that the girth weld failure was caused by axial
stress due to movement of the pipe that exceeded the cross-sectional
tensile strength of the net section weld zone surrounding the crack
initiation location.
     On January 9, 2018, a 22-inch transmission pipeline failed
in Montecito, California. The incident resulted in a fire and explosion
and the release of an estimated 12,000 Mcf of natural gas. Heavy rains
and localized flooding contributed to the pipe failure.
     On December 5, 2016, approximately 14,400 barrels of crude
oil were spilled into an unnamed tributary to Ash Coulee Creek, Ash
Coulee Creek itself, the Little Missouri River, and their adjoining
shorelines in Billings County, North Dakota. The metallurgical and root
cause failure analysis indicated the failure was caused by compressive
and bending forces due to a landslide impacting the pipeline. The
landslide was the result of excessive moisture within the hillside
creating unstable soil conditions.
     On October 21, 2016, a pipeline release of over 1,238
barrels of gasoline spilled into the Loyalsock Creek in Lycoming
County, Pennsylvania. The release was caused by extreme localized
flooding and soil erosion.

    Within its rulemaking entitled ``Safety of Gas Transmission
Pipelines: Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic
Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments'' (RIN
2137-AF39), PHMSA notes that it is considering adopting revisions to
Sec.  192.613 that would oblige operators of gas transmission pipelines
to conduct inspections on their facilities following an extreme weather
event to ensure timely identification and remediation of damage to
those facilities. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) recently issued interim guidance underscoring the importance of
the evaluation of, and emergency planning for, geohazards for safe
operation of carbon dioxide and other pipeline facilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CEQ, ``Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration
Guidance,'' 87 FR 8808, 8810 (Feb. 16, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2022-01)

    Advisory: All owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines, including supercritical carbon dioxide pipelines, are
reminded that earth movement, particularly in variable, steep, and
rugged terrain and terrain with varied or changing subsurface
geological conditions, can pose a threat to the integrity of a pipeline
if those threats are not identified and mitigated. Additionally,
changing weather patterns due to climate change may result in heavier
than normal rainfall and higher temperatures, resulting in soil
saturation and flooding or soil erosion, each of which may adversely
impact soil stability surrounding or supporting nearby pipeline
facilities.
    Pipeline operators should consider taking the following actions to
ensure pipeline safety:
    1. Identify areas surrounding the pipeline that may be prone to
large earth movement, including but not limited to slope instability,
subsidence, frost heave, soil settlement, erosion, earthquakes, and
other dynamic geologic conditions that may pose a safety risk.
    2. Use geotechnical engineers during the design, construction, and
ongoing operation of a pipeline system to ensure that sufficient
information is available to avoid or minimize the impact of earth
movement on the integrity of the pipeline system. At a minimum,
operators should consider soil strength characteristics, ground and
surface water conditions, propensity for erosion or scour of underlying
soils, and the propensity of earthquakes or frost heave.
    3. Develop design, construction, and monitoring plans and
procedures for each identified location, based on the site-specific
hazards identified. When constructing new pipelines, develop and
implement procedures for pipe and girth weld designs to increase their
effectiveness for taking loads, either stresses or strains, exerted
from pipe movement in areas where geological subsurface conditions and
movement are a hazard to pipeline integrity.
    4. Monitoring plans may include provisions related to the
following:
     Ensuring during construction of new pipelines that
excavators do not steepen, load (including changing the groundwater
levels) or undercut slopes which may cause excessive ground movement
during construction or after operations commence.
     Conducting periodic visits and site inspections. Increased
patrolling may be necessary due to potential hazards identified and
existing/pending weather conditions. Right-of-way patrol staff must be
trained on how to detect and report conditions that may lead to or
exhibit ground movement to appropriate staff.
     Identifying geodetic monitoring points (i.e., survey
benchmarks) to track potential ground movement.
     Installing slope inclinometers to track ground movement at
depth which may otherwise not be detectable during right-of-way
patrols.
     Installing standpipe piezometers to track changes in
groundwater conditions that may affect slope stability.
     Evaluating the accumulation of strain on the pipeline by
installing strain gauges.
     Conducting stress/strain analysis utilizing in-line
inspection tools equipped with inertia mapping unit technology and high
resolution deformation in-line inspection for pipe bending and denting
from movement.
     Utilizing aerial mapping light detection and ranging or
other technology to track changes in ground conditions.
    5. Develop mitigation measures to remediate the identified
locations.
    6. Monitor environmental conditions and changing weather patterns
in proximity to their facilities and evaluate soil stability that may
have been adversely impacted.
     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Centers for Environmental Information has excellent
information publicly available. For example, see the National
Temperature and Precipitation Maps at the National Centers for
Environmental Information (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/us-maps/).
    7. Use available data and information resources to assess pipeline
facility vulnerability relative to landslides and other types of earth
movement.
     The USGS has excellent information publicly available
regarding land movement. For example, see the Landslide Hazards Maps at
the USGS website (https://www.usgs.gov/programs/landslide-hazards/maps).
    8. Consider the findings and recommendations of pertinent research
projects, studies, and reports on the impact of changing weather
patterns on soil stability.\3\ PHMSA also notes that industry and
academic materials could be informative regarding relevant
considerations and strategies for ensuring pipeline integrity in areas
of land movement or soil subsidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, PHMSA has funded the following research and
development projects on the impact of soil movement and pipeline
monitoring: Pipeline Integrity Management for Ground Movement
Hazards (https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=202);
Combined Vibration, Ground Movement, and Pipe Current Detector
(https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=655);
Definition of Geotechnical and Operational Load Effects on Pipeline
Anomalies (https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=561);
and Fiber Optic Sensors for Direct Pipeline Monitoring Under
Geohazard Conditions (https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=889).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Mitigation measures should be based on site-specific conditions
and may include:
     Re-routing the pipeline right-of-way prior to construction
to avoid areas prone to large ground movement such as unstable slope
areas, earthquake fault zones, permafrost movement, or scour.
     Utilize properly designed horizontal directional drilling
to go below areas of potential land movement.
     Installation of drainage measures in the trench to
mitigate subsurface flows and enhance surface water draining at the
site including streams, creeks, runs, gullies, or other sources of
surface run-off that may be contributing surface water to the site or
changing groundwater levels that may exacerbate earth movement.
     Reducing the steepness of potentially unstable slopes,
including installing retaining walls, soldier piles, sheet piles, wire
mesh systems, mechanically stabilized earth systems and other
mechanical structures.
     Installing trench breakers and slope breakers to mitigate
trench seepage and divert trench flows along the surface to safe
discharge points off the site or right-of-way.
     Building retaining walls and/or installing steel piling or
concrete caissons to stabilize steep slope areas as

long as the corrosion control systems are not compromised.
     Reducing the loading on the site by removing and/or
reducing the excess backfill materials to off-site locations. Soil
placement should be carefully planned to avoid triggering earth
movement in other locations.
     Compacting backfill materials at the site to increase
strength, reduce water infiltration, and achieve optimal moisture
content.
     Drying the soil using special additives such as lime-kiln
dust or cement-kiln to allow the materials to be re-used and worked at
the site. Over-saturated materials may require an extensive amount of
time and space to dry.
     Regrading the pipeline right-of-way to minimize scour and
erosion.
     Bringing the pipeline above ground and placing it on
supports that can accommodate large ground movements (e.g., transitions
across earthquake fault zones or unstable slopes, without putting
excessive stress or strain on the pipeline).
     Reducing the operating pressure temporarily or shutting-in
the affected pipeline segment completely.
     Re-routing the pipeline when other appropriate mitigation
measures cannot be effectively implemented to maintain safety.
    Pipeline safety regulations require reporting of certain conditions
that impair the serviceability of a pipeline, as noted in Sec. Sec.
191.23 and 195.55.
    PHMSA encourages pipeline operators to enhance their preparations
and procedures beyond the minimum Federal standards and to address the
unique threats, vulnerabilities, and challenges of each individual
pipeline facility. Pipeline operators, Federal and state regulators,
and the public have a common goal of no damage and no releases from
pipeline infrastructure. Working together will better achieve our goal
of zero incidents and releases.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-11791 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71746-71750]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 150

[Docket No. FDA-1997-P-0007] (formerly Docket No. 1997P-0142)

Artificially Sweetened Fruit Jelly and Artificially Sweetened
Fruit Preserves and Jams; Proposed Revocation of Standards of Identity

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is proposing to
revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly,
preserves, and jams. We are taking this action primarily in response to
a citizen petition submitted by the International Jelly and Preserve
Association (IJPA). We are taking this action because we tentatively
conclude that these standards are both obsolete and unnecessary in
light of our regulations for foods named by use of a nutrient content
claim and a standardized term. We also tentatively conclude that this
action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers.

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by
March 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-1997-
P-0007 (formerly Docket No. 1997P-0142), by any of the following
methods.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management, (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-1997-P-0007 (formerly Docket No. 1997P-0142) for
this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the
``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket numbers found in brackets in the heading of this document into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD
20852.P>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Reese, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    For more than 50 years, FDA has maintained standards of identity
for

fruit jelly (jelly) (21 CFR 150.140) and fruit preserves and jams
(preserves and jams) (21 CFR 150.160). The standards establish the
common or usual name for these products and provide that these products
may contain nutritive sweeteners (e.g., sugar). In 1959, FDA added new
standards of identity for artificially sweetened fruit jelly
(artificially sweetened jelly) (21 CFR 150.141) and artificially
sweetened fruit preserves and jams (artificially sweetened preserves
and jams) (21 CFR 150.161) (24 FR 8896; October 31, 1959) that permit
the use of non-nutritive sweeteners (e.g., saccharin). Notably,
Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 limit the types of non-nutritive
sweeteners that can be used in products that are governed by those
standards of identity. Such products may only use saccharin, sodium
saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof, and may not
use newer forms of non-nutritive sweeteners that have been established
since the standard of identity regulations were issued.
    The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to provide for a
number of fundamental changes in food labeling, leading to a new
regulatory framework for the naming of foods that do not fully comply
with the relevant standards of identity. In response to NLEA, FDA
established in part 101 (21 CFR part 101), among other things,
definitions for specific nutrient content claims using terms such as
``free,'' ``low,'' ``light'' or ``lite,'' and ``less,'' and provided
for their use in food labeling (58 FR 2302; January 6, 1993). FDA also
prescribed at the same time in Sec.  130.10 (21 CFR 130.10) a general
definition and standard of identity for foods named by a nutrient
content claim defined in part 101, such as ``low calorie'' or ``sugar
free,'' in conjunction with a traditional standardized food term (58 FR
2431; January 6, 1993). A nutrient content claim applied to the
standardized food ``grape jelly,'' for example, could be ``low calorie
grape jelly.'' Section 130.10(d)(1) allows the addition of safe and
suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim
and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other
things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior
in performance characteristic to the standardized food even if such
ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food
standard. Thus, under certain circumstances, Sec.  130.10 permits
manufacturers to use safe and suitable artificial sweeteners (e.g.,
aspartame) that are not expressly listed in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and
150.161 in the manufacture of jelly, fruit preserves, and jams
(collectively, ``fruit spreads''). Therefore, fruit spread products
named with a nutrient content claim (for example, ``low calorie grape
jelly'') may contain newer artificial sweeteners to add sweetness to
fruit spread products so that they are not inferior in their sweetness
compared to their standardized counterparts (for example, ``grape
jelly''). The provisions of Sec.  130.10 do not require these products
to declare the presence of such non-nutritive sweeteners within the
name of these foods. FDA took this action to assist consumers in
maintaining healthy dietary practices by providing for a modified
version of a traditional standardized food to achieve a nutrition goal
(e.g., reduction in sugar consumption or calories) and that has a
descriptive name that is meaningful to consumers. The provisions of
Sec.  130.10 do not, however, permit the use of nutrient content claims
as part of the name of a food for foods governed by standards of
identity that established the phrase ``artificially sweetened'' as part
of the standard of identity. Accordingly, jelly, preserves, and jams,
that use saccharin, sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any
combination thereof as non-nutritive sweeteners must still include the
term ``artificially sweetened'' in their names and are not permitted to
bear a nutrient content claim as part of the name; however, similar
products that use newer non-nutritive sweeteners are governed by Sec.
130.10 and must not include the term ``artificially sweetened'' in
their names.

II. IJPA Petition and Grounds

    IJPA is a national trade association representing the manufacturers
of jelly, preserves, jams, and nonstandardized fruit spreads, and
suppliers of goods and services to the industry, including ingredient
suppliers of fruit, sweeteners, and pectin. IJPA submitted a citizen
petition dated March 31, 1997 (now Docket No. FDA-1997-P-0007),
requesting the revocation of the standards of identity for artificially
sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams. IJPA submitted its petition in
response to FDA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking announcing that
FDA was planning to review its food standards regulations (60 FR 67492;
December 29, 1995). In that document, we sought comments on, inter
alia, the benefits or lack of benefits of such regulations in
facilitating domestic and international commerce, the value of these
regulations to consumers, and alternative means of accomplishing the
statutory objective of food standards (i.e., to promote honesty and
fair dealing in the interest of consumers in the manufacture and sale
of food products covered by the standard of identity regulations).
    IJPA asserts in its citizen petition that the standards of identity
for artificially sweetened jelly, jams, and preserves are outdated.
According to IJPA, the standards have not been updated to take into
account new non-nutritive sweeteners that have been approved by FDA
since 1959. The petition maintains that the general standard in Sec.
130.10 provides fruit spread manufacturers with sufficient flexibility
to use newer, intense non-nutritive sweeteners in lieu of traditional
nutritive sweeteners, and it would be appropriate to rely on that
general standard rather than seek piecemeal amendments to the standards
of identity to reflect the development of any new sweeteners. IJPA
stated that by using the general standard in Sec.  130.10,
manufacturers can create products with nutrient content claims for
reductions in calories or sugar content that are established in FDA
regulations. According to IJPA, nutrient content terms (e.g., ``low
calorie'') also better communicate to the consumer the nutritional
benefit of the use of non-nutritive sweeteners than does the term
``artificially sweetened,'' which is required to appear in the labels
of products manufactured in conformity with Sec. Sec.  150.141 and
150.161. Therefore, IJPA concluded in its petition that the standards
of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams are
both obsolete and unnecessary, and requested that we revoke these
standards. Finally, IJPA stated that as of the date of submission of
its citizen petition, there were few products being manufactured under
these two standards of identity and that some manufacturers are already
using the general standard in Sec.  130.10 to formulate products that
have reduced sugar and caloric content. IJPA stated that if these
standards are revoked, any products that are currently manufactured in
conformity with the standards could remain on the market by operation
of Sec.  130.10.

III. The Proposal

    We have reviewed IJPA's petition. We find merit in IJPA's argument
that revoking the artificially sweetened standards of identity would
allow manufacturers to more accurately and consistently describe the
attributes of the fruit spreads that currently conform to those
standards. We therefore tentatively conclude that revoking the
standards would promote honesty and

fair dealing in the interest of consumers and is, thus, appropriate
under section 401 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 341). We tentatively reach
this conclusion because we find that nutrient content claims, such as
``low calorie'' or ``reduced sugar'' better characterize the
nutritional profile of the affected fruit spreads than does the term
``artificially sweetened.'' Further, revoking Sec. Sec.  150.141 and
150.161 provides manufacturers with the flexibility to use the three
non-nutritive sweeteners listed in those standards while also naming
their products using FDA-defined nutrient content claims, in accordance
with Sec.  130.10. Moreover, other safe and suitable artificial
sweeteners that might be developed in the future could be used in these
products under Sec.  130.10 without the need to further revise relevant
standards of identity.
    Enactment of NLEA and the development of newer artificial
sweeteners, thus, renders the standards of identity for artificially
sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161
obsolete. They no longer serve their intended purpose of ensuring
honesty and fair dealing while allowing for the use of artificial
sweeteners in standardized fruit jelly and standardized fruit preserves
and jams as firms may now use certain artificial sweeteners under Sec.
130.10. The standards for artificially sweetened jelly and artificially
sweetened preserves and jams predate the nutrient content claim
provisions of Sec.  130.10. Removal of the artificially sweetened
standards of identity would mean that products that are currently
subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 would
instead be subject to the requirements of Sec.  130.10, the general
definition and standard of identity for foods named by a nutrient
content claim defined in part 101. Thus, these products would be named
by use of a nutrient content claim (e.g., ``reduced calorie'' or ``no
sugar added'') along with a standardized term (``jelly'' or ``jam''),
in accordance with Sec.  130.10. Revoking Sec. Sec.  150.141 and
150.161 also would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers by requiring manufacturers to more accurately and
consistently describe the attributes of the food (e.g., less sugar or
reduced calories); would allow any safe and suitable non-nutritive
sweetener to be used in standardized jams, jellies, and preserves; and
would allow better comparison to other jams, jellies, and preserves
currently modified under the provisions of Sec.  130.10. For example,
under current requirements, a jelly that is sweetened with saccharin
must be called ``artificially sweetened jelly'' (in accordance with
Sec.  150.141) whereas a similar jelly sweetened with aspartame may be
named as ``reduced sugar jelly'' (in accordance with Sec.  130.10 and
provided it meets the requirements for the nutrient content claim
``reduced sugar'' in Sec.  101.60.(c)(5)) to distinguish it from the
standardized food (jelly in Sec.  150.140). Revoking the standards
would provide consistency and uniformity among such products because
all fruit spreads sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners would be
subject to the same requirements. This proposed rule also is consistent
with FDA's proposed general principles for modernizing food standards
(70 FR 29214; May 20, 2005). In addition, this proposal is consistent
with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and
Executive Order 13653 of January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821), regarding
improving Agency regulations, regulatory planning, and regulatory
review.
    Considering the information in this document, we are proposing to
revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly,
preserves, and jams in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161, respectively. We
request comments on our tentative conclusion that these two standards
of identity are obsolete and unnecessary, and that revoking them would
promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.

IV. Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4).
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying
both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and
of promoting flexibility. We tentatively conclude that this proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
Orders.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because we have tentatively concluded, as set forth
in this document, that this rule would not generate significant
compliance costs, we expect that this proposed rule, if finalized,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. We request comment on the impact of this rule on small
entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $139 million, using the most current (2011) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. We do not expect this
proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.

A. Need for This Regulation

    We are proposing to revoke the standards of identity for
artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams because we have
tentatively concluded that these standards are obsolete and
unnecessary. The current standards of identity for artificially
sweetened jelly (Sec.  150.141) and artificially sweetened preserves
and jams (Sec.  150.161) provide that they may be manufactured only
with specific, non-nutritive artificial sweeteners: saccharin, sodium
saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof. These
standards of identity, therefore, do not permit the use of newer, safe
and suitable artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame.
    The development of newer artificial sweeteners and the enactment of
the NLEA have made the current standards of identity for artificially
sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams obsolete. The NLEA and Sec.
130.10 permit the modification of a traditional standardized food to
achieve a nutrition goal, such as a reduction in calories. Section
130.10(d)(1) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a
food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term
when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness
to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance
characteristic to the standardized food, even if such ingredients are
not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard.
Standardized jelly and standardized preserves and jams products
modified under Sec.  130.10 must use nutrient content claims to
communicate the

modified standardized product's nutritional profile to consumers. Under
Sec.  130.10, nonspecific, safe and suitable artificial sweeteners
other than the three named in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 can be
used to make reduced calorie or reduced sugar products labeled with a
nutrient content claim that is established in FDA regulations. Revoking
the standards of identity, as proposed, would mean that any product
subject to Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 would instead be subject to
Sec.  130.10. This would allow consumers to better compare any fruit
spreads currently covered by Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 with other
spreads that are named and modified under the provisions of Sec.
130.10. Revoking the standards would also provide manufacturers with
the flexibility to use the three non-nutritive sweeteners listed in
Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161, while naming their products under the
provisions of Sec.  130.10 using a defined nutrient content claim.

B. Regulatory Options

    In assessing our regulatory options, we considered the option of
taking no action and the option of taking the action proposed by this
rule. We have tentatively concluded that the proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed, would not be an economically significant
regulatory action. We are not quantitatively estimating the benefits
and costs of the regulatory alternatives to the proposed rule. In the
following paragraphs, we qualitatively compare the costs and benefits
of the regulatory options to the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule.
1. The Option of Taking No Action
    By convention, we treat the option of taking no new regulatory
action as the baseline for determining the costs and benefits of the
other options. Therefore, we associate neither costs nor benefits with
this option. The consequences of taking no action are reflected in the
costs and benefits associated with taking the action set forth in this
proposed rule.
2. The Option of Taking the Proposed Action
    If the proposed rule is finalized as proposed, and we revoke
Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161, products that are currently subject to
the requirements of these standards of identity would no longer be
required to use the phrase ``artificially sweetened'' as part of their
product name. Furthermore, revoking Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161
would mean that these same products would be permitted to bear nutrient
content claims along with a standardized term (e.g., ``reduced calorie
jelly'' or ``no sugar added jam''), in accordance with Sec.  130.10.
    The costs of this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would
result from the need to relabel any existing jelly, preserves, and jams
that conform with the standards in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161. Any
products currently manufactured in accordance with the standards in
Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 would have to be relabeled in order to
comply with Sec.  130.10 if this proposed rule is finalized as
proposed. Our review of supermarket scanner data for the years 2001
through 2010, however, revealed that no such products are currently
being sold. Sales for products manufactured in accordance with
Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 were last reported in 2002. A memorandum
summarizing the results of this scanner data can be found in Reference
1. The data support our tentative conclusion that most manufacturers
most likely have discontinued production of artificially sweetened
jelly, preserves, and jams, presumably because of a perception that the
phrase ``artificially sweetened'' is unattractive to consumers. The
data also support our tentative conclusion that it is unlikely that
this proposed rule would generate significant compliance costs due to
the need to relabel products. In fact, removal of the artificially
sweetened standards of identity would allow manufacturers to re-
introduce products covered under Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 to be
sold as products covered by Sec.  130.10. That is, they would be named
by use of a nutrient content claim in conjunction with a standardized
term (e.g., ``reduced calorie jelly'' or ``no sugar added jam''), in
accordance with Sec.  130.10. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that
any relabeling compliance costs would be negligible.
    We do not classify as anticipated costs of this proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed, any expenses that firms might voluntarily incur
if they choose to change their product formulas or manufacturing
practices in response to the proposed revocation of the ``artificially
sweetened'' standards of identity. Any such costs are not costs that
would be required by this proposed regulatory change. Instead, these
costs would result from voluntary business decisions made by
manufacturers.
    We tentatively conclude that the principal benefits that would
result from the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, derive from
increased information and flexibility. Revoking the artificially
sweetened standards of identity would provide producers of jelly,
preserves, and jams with the flexibility to use saccharin, sodium
saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof, in their
formulations without having to include the term ``artificially
sweetened'' in their product names. Manufacturers could instead name
their products in accordance with approved nutrient content claims, as
provided for under Sec.  130.10, thus providing consumers with
additional information about the nutritional profile of affected
products. Additionally, revoking Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 would
assist consumers in comparing products covered by the standards with
other similar jelly, preserves, and jams manufactured in accordance
with Sec.  130.10.
    Accordingly, while we do not quantify the costs and benefits of
this proposed rule, we tentatively conclude that potential benefits
will outweigh any potential costs associated with the rule.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because compliance costs, if any, generated by this
proposed rule are expected to be negligible, we tentatively conclude
that this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We request
comment on this tentative conclusion. The following analysis, in
conjunction with the discussion in this document, constitutes our
initial regulatory flexibility analysis as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
    This proposed rule, if finalized, would revoke the standards of
identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams. The
revocation of these artificially sweetened standards of identity would
provide small fruit spread firms with the flexibility to use the three
non-nutritive sweeteners listed in Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161 and
to name their products with FDA-defined nutrient content claims in
accordance with Sec.  130.10, as is currently done for fruit spread
products manufactured with other non-nutritive sweeteners.
    We do not classify as costs of this proposed rule any expenses that
some small firms might voluntarily incur because they choose to change
their product formulas or manufacturing practices in ways that would be
permitted by the proposed rule, if finalized. As discussed in this
document, any such costs would not be costs required by this proposal,
if finalized. We request comments on the provisions of this proposed
rule that might require small firms to change their current practices.

V. Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the
Executive order requires Agencies to ``construe * * * a Federal statute
to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the
Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of
State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute.''
    Section 403A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is an express
preemption provision. Section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act provides that
``no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or
indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to
any food in interstate commerce--(1) any requirement for a food which
is the subject of a standard of identity established under section 401
that is not identical to such standard of identity or that is not
identical to the requirement of section 403(g).''
    The express preemption provision of section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act
does not preempt any State or local requirement respecting a statement
in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the
safety of the food or component of the food (section 6(c)(2) of the
NLEA, Public Law 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353, 2364 (1990)).
    This proposed rule, if finalized, would impose requirements that
fall within the scope of section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act.

VI. Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(a) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    We conclude that the provisions of this proposed rule are not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they
do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

VIII. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IX. Reference

    The following source has been placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
    1. Memorandum to the file, from Cristina McLaughlin, FDA, November
26, 2012.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 150

    Food grades and standards, Fruits.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and
redelegated to the Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, it
is proposed that 21 CFR part 150 be amended as follows:

PART 150--FRUIT BUTTERS, JELLIES, PRESERVES, AND RELATED PRODUCTS

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 150 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371, 379e.

Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161  [Removed]

    2. Remove Sec. Sec.  150.141 and 150.161.

    Dated: November 27, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-29181 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63042-63045]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0479; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD;
Amendment 39-16472; AD 2010-21-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark
0070 and 0100 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from 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 describes the unsafe condition as:
* * * * *
    Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough
internal pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario
for the hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected)
brake QD [quick-disconnect] coupling. Further investigation of the
service experience files at Fokker Services showed that more brake
fires have occurred on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127
configuration.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible brake
fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to safely land
the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 18, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 18,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2010 (75 FR
27961). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During 1995, several reports were received of brake QD [quick-
disconnect] couplings loosened and/or disconnected during operation.
In a few cases, residual brake pressure was trapped in the affected
brake, causing asymmetric braking and/or resulting in hot brakes.
Loosened couplings may cause a hydraulic leak with the risk of a
brake fire. Investigation revealed that the installation of the
brake QD couplings must be done with care and that the locking teeth
on the light alloy sleeve are prone to wear. The Fokker 70/100
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) has been revised to include
additional information to ensure correct removal and installation of
the couplings.
    In 1997, Fokker Services issued SBF100-32-106, recommending the
introduction of QD couplings with corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
sleeves that would prevent excessive wear of the locking teeth on
the light alloy sleeve. In response to more reported cases of
loosened QD couplings resulting in brake problems, further improved
QD couplings were introduced in 2001 through SBF100-32-127. These
couplings increase the reliability of the brake system.
    Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough
internal pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario
for the hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected)
brake QD coupling. Further investigation of the service experience
files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have occurred
on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127 configuration.
    In order to reduce the probability of a fluid fire as described
in CS (certification specification) 25.863, additional action is
deemed necessary.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD requires repetitive [detailed] inspections [for wear] of
the affected brake QD couplings and replacement of the QD couplings
with improved units. Installation of the improved QD couplings
terminates the repetitive inspections requirements.

The unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible brake
fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to safely land
the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 16 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $4,814 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $82,464, or $5,154 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 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-21-12 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-16472. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0479; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
18, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial
numbers, with any brake quick-disconnect (QD) coupling having part
number (P/N) AE70690E, AE70691E, AE99111E, or AE99119E installed.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During 1995, several reports were received of brake QD couplings
loosened and/or disconnected during operation. In a few cases,
residual brake pressure was trapped in the affected brake, causing
asymmetric braking and/or resulting in hot brakes. Loosened
couplings may cause a hydraulic leak with the risk of a brake fire.
Investigation revealed that the installation of the brake QD
couplings must be done with care and that the locking teeth on the
light alloy sleeve are prone to wear. The Fokker 70/100 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) has been revised to include additional
information to ensure correct removal and installation of the
couplings.
    In 1997, Fokker Services issued SBF100-32-106, recommending the
introduction of QD couplings with corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
sleeves that would prevent excessive wear of the locking teeth on
the light alloy sleeve. In response to more reported cases of
loosened QD couplings resulting in brake problems, further improved
QD couplings were introduced in 2001 through SBF100-32-127. These
couplings increase the reliability of the brake system.
    Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough
internal pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario
for the hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected)
brake QD coupling. Further investigation of the service experience
files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have occurred
on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127 configuration.
    In order to reduce the probability of a fluid fire as described
in CS (certification specification) 25.863, additional action is
deemed necessary.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD requires repetitive [detailed] inspections [for wear] of
the affected brake QD couplings and replacement of the QD couplings
with improved units. Installation of the improved QD couplings
terminates the repetitive inspections requirements.

The unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible
brake fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to
safely land the airplane.

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Do the following actions.
    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection for wear of the brake QD couplings by measuring
dimension ``A,'' in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision 1,
dated June 29, 2009. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in Table 1 of this AD, except as
required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

                Table 1--Repetitive Inspection Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Repeat the  inspection at
           If dimension ``A'' is--              intervals not to exceed--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than or equal to 0.76 mm.............  6 months.
Less than 0.76 mm but greater than or equal    3 months.
 to 0.72 mm.
Less than 0.72 mm but greater than or equal    30 days.
 to 0.68 mm.
Less than 0.68 mm but greater than or equal    7 days.
 to 0.61 mm.
Less than 0.61 mm but greater than 0.53 mm...  24 hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, dimension ``A'' on any brake QD coupling is less than or
equal to 0.53 mm, before further flight, replace the affected brake
QD coupling with an improved unit having P/N AE73059E or P/N
AE73091E, as applicable, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-
156, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009.
    (3) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace all remaining brake QD couplings having P/N AE70690E, P/N
AE70691E, P/N AE99111E, and P/N AE99119E with improved units, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009.
    (4) Installation of brake QD couplings with an improved unit
having P/N AE73059E or P/N AE73091E at all locations terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (5) Replacing the brake QD couplings is also acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD if done before the effective date of
this AD, in accordance with any of the service bulletins specified
in Table 2 of this AD:

                Table 2--Fokker Credit Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fokker Service Bulletins         Revision               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Performa Service         Original........  July 20, 2001.
 Bulletin SBF100-32-127,
 including Appendix XIV, dated
 February 1, 2006.
Fokker Performa Service         1...............  March 6, 2009.
 Bulletin SBF100-32-127,
 including Appendix XIV, dated
 February 1, 2006.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100- Original........  March 6, 2009.
 32-156.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) 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. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0176, dated August 6, 2009; and Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision
1, dated June 29, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150
AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax
+31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.myfokkerfleetcom.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 29, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25449 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41273-41275]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16574]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0451; FRL-9913-70-OAR]

Contractor Access to Vehicle and Engine Information Claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Title II of the
Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA's) Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has authorized various
contractors to access information which has been submitted to EPA under
Title II of the Clean Air Act and that is claimed to be, or has been
determined to be, confidential business information (CBI). EPA is
providing notice of past disclosure and of ongoing and contemplated
future disclosure.

DATES: Access by EPA contractors to material discussed in this Notice
that has been either claimed or determined to be confidential business
information (CBI) is ongoing and is expected to continue in the future.
EPA will accept comments on this Notice through July 21, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julian M. Davis, Attorney-Advisor,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan
(48105); Telephone number: 734-214-

4029; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to parties who submit or have previously
submitted information to EPA regarding the following programs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Program                        Regulation citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part
 recall of light-duty vehicles,           85, subpart T.
 motorcycles and heavy-duty on-highway
 vehicles and engines.
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 89, subparts B and
 recall of non-road compression-          I, 40 CFR part 1039, subpart
 ignition engines.                        C, and 40 CFR part 1068,
                                          subpart F.
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 90, subparts C and
 recall of spark-ignition engines less    I, 40 CFR part 1054, subpart
 than or equal to 19 kilowatts.           C, and 40 CFR part 1068,
                                          subpart F.
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 91, subparts B and
 recall of marine spark-ignition          J, 40 CFR part 1045, subpart
 engines.                                 C, and 40 CFR part 1068,
                                          subpart F.
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 92, subparts C and
 recall of locomotives.                   E, 40 CFR part 1033, subpart
                                          C, and 40 CFR part 1068,
                                          subpart F.
Certification and defect reporting/      40 CFR part 94, subparts C and
 recall of marine compression-ignition    E, 40 CFR part 1042, subpart
 engines.                                 C, and 40 CFR part 1068,
                                          subpart F.
Certification of large nonroad spark-    40 CFR part 1048, subpart C,
 ignition engines.                        and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
                                          F.
Certification of recreational engines    40 CFR part 1051, subpart C,
 and vehicles.                            and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
                                          F.
Certification of non-road and            40 CFR part 1060, subpart C.
 stationary equipment for evaporative
 emissions compliance.
Fuel economy information...............  40 CFR part 600.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reports submitted to EPA under 40 CFR parts 86 and 600 related to
engine and vehicle compliance, such as light-duty certification and
fuel economy information, are commonly referred to by the name of the
reporting system itself--i.e., Verify, the EPA's vehicle and engine
compliance information system. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular party, please contact the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

A. Electronically

    EPA has established a public docket for this Notice under Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0451. All documents in the docket are identified in the
docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as
confidential business information (CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain materials, such as
copyrighted material, will only be available in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center.

B. EPA Docket Center

    Materials listed under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0451 will be
available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

III. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) to Contractors

    The EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
responsibility for protecting public health and the environment by
regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and the fuels
used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices that minimize
emissions. In order to implement various Clean Air Act programs, and to
permit regulated entities flexibility in meeting regulatory
requirements, we collect compliance data and other information from
them. Typically, the information submitted is claimed to be CBI.
Information submitted under such a claim is handled in accordance with
the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B and in accordance
with EPA procedures, including comprehensive system security plans
(SSPs), that are consistent with those regulations. When the EPA has
determined that disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contractors
is necessary, the corresponding contract must address the appropriate
use and handling of the information by the contractor and the
contractor must require its personnel who require access to information
claimed as CBI to sign written nondisclosure agreements before they are
granted access to the information.
    Controls regarding the handling of information claimed as CBI,
including sharing of information with contractors, are also addressed
in individual SSPs. The required SSPs adhere to EPA regulations and
policies, as well as with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Standard 800-53, ``Recommended Security Controls for
Federal Information Systems and Organizations.'' (NIST Standard 800-53
addresses technical, physical, environmental and other controls for
information systems, including Local Area Networks (LANs) where
information claimed as CBI may be stored.) Security plans address
background investigations, required training, and rules of behavior for
employees and contractors who require access to information claimed as
CBI.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), we have determined that the
contractors, subcontractors, and grantees (collectively referred to as
``contractors'') listed below require access to CBI submitted to us
under Title II of the Clean Air Act and in connection with various OTAQ
programs related to vehicles and engines and are providing notice and
an opportunity to comment. OTAQ collects this data and related
information in order to monitor compliance with Clean Air Act programs
and, in many cases, to permit regulated parties flexibility in meeting
regulatory requirements. For example, data that may contain CBI is
collected in order to determine if equipment manufacturers may be
eligible for regulatory relief under EPA's Transition Program for
Equipment Manufacturers (40 CFR Parts 89, 1039 and 1054). The nature of
the work and its necessity, and the type of access granted, is
described below for each contractor. Normally, EPA is required to

give affected businesses notice and an opportunity to comment at least
five (5) working days prior to disclosure of information claimed as CBI
to a Federal contractor. This Federal Register Notice provides notice
to all affected businesses that, as described below, certain
information may be provided to EPA contractors. We are publishing this
notice in order to comply with the notification requirements of 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B. We are issuing this notice to inform all submitters
of information related to various vehicle and engine programs that we
have provided, and may in the future provide, access to material
claimed as CBI to the contractors identified below on a need-to-know
basis.
    Under Contract Number EP-C-13-033, Jacobs Technology, Inc., 600
William Northern Boulevard, Tullahoma, Tenessee 37388, provides support
services for vehicle and engine emission certification programs to the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Access by this contractor to vehicle and engine data and information
claimed as CBI under this contract commenced on September 1, 2013 and
will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
    Under contract number GSF4381G, Computer Sciences Corporation
(CSC), 8400 Corporate Drive, New Carrollton, Maryland 20785, provides
Information Technology (IT) support services related to the EPA's
vehicle and engine compliance information system, commonly known as the
Verify system. Access by this contractor to vehicle and engine data and
information under this contract, including information claimed as CBI,
has been ongoing since September 11, 2009 and is expected to continue
through September 10, 2015. If the contract is extended, this access
will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
    Under contract number GS00Q09BGD0022, CGI Federal, 12601 Fair Lakes
Circle, Fairfax, Virginia 22033, provides technical and IT support for
the Verify system. Access by this contractor to vehicle and engine data
and information claimed as CBI commenced on January 1, 2012 and will
continue through December 31, 2014. If the contract is extended this
access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
    Under contract number EP-C-11-007, SRA International, 4300 Fair
Lakes Court, Fairfax, Virginia 22033, has provided and will continue to
provide technical and analytical support for the OTAQ. Access by this
contractor to vehicle and engine data and information under this
contract claimed as CBI commenced on February 1, 2011 and will continue
until December 31, 2014.
    The Office of Transportation and Air Quality utilizes the services
of enrollees under the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program.
SEE funding for enrollees is provided through three grant programs.
SSAI grant 835572 and SSAI grant Q835372 located at
Suite 1200, Coles Field Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; and the
National Association for Hispanic Elderly (NAHE) grant number 835418,
located at 234 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 300, Pasadena, California
91101. SSAI grant 835572 commenced on November 1, 2013 and
will continue until October 31, 2016. SSAI grant Q835372
commenced on November 1, 2012 and will continue until October 31, 2015.
NAHE grant 835418 commenced on December 1, 2013 and will
continue until November 30, 2016. SEE grantees have access to data and
other information relating to all of the OTAQ's engine and vehicle
programs, including information claimed as CBI. If the grant is
extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the grant and
any future extensions without further notice.
    Parties who wish further information about this Federal Register
notice or about OTAQ's disclosure of information designated or claimed
as CBI to contactors may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2014-16574 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8188]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2055-099]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment to Land Management Plan.
    b. Project No: 2055-099.
    c. Date Filed: December 29, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: C.J. Strike Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Snake and Bruneau
Rivers, in Elmore and Owyhee counties, Idaho.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: L. Lewis Wardle, Senior Biologist--Licensing
Program<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(208) 388-2964.
    i. FERC Contact: Krista Sakallaris,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: March 10, 2015.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2055-099.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Idaho Power Company (IPC) filed a five-
year compliance report for the C.J. Strike Project's approved land
management plan as well as proposed updates to the existing plan.
Updates include new land-use classification maps based off previously
approved changes and modifications to the use classification of private
boat docks on conservation and agriculture/grazing land. IPC proposes
to change the use classification of private boat docks to
``conditional'' in conservation and agriculture/grazing land-use areas,
which are currently listed as prohibited uses. To remain consistent
across projects, IPC proposes the modification due to changes in land
ownership and land use patterns from open-range grazing to private/
rural-residential uses in the project area, as well as at several other
IPC projects. IPC states that by listing private boat docks as
conditional it would review all applications to ensure the proposal
does not have adverse resource effects. Additionally, all dock
applications would be required to meet the IPC's existing boat dock
standards and applicants would be required to obtain the required state
and federal permits and consult with specified resource agencies.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing 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 the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03333 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30272-30273]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12312]

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

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: EC12-103-000.
    Applicants: Emera Incorporated, Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
    Description: Application under FPA Section 203 of Emera
Incorporated and Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1141-001; ER10-1139-001; ER10-1151-004; ER10-
1103-001; ER10-1123-001; ER10-3247-004.
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Marketing Company, Ameren Energy
Generating Company, Electric Energy Inc., AmerenEnergy Medina Valley
Cogen, LLC, AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company, Ameren Illinois
Company, Union Electric Company.
    Description: Addendum to Triennial Market Power Update of Ameren
Companies.
    Filed Date: 5/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120501-5447.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1351-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Errata filing to correct Section 3.2 of the PJM OATT
Att K Appx & OA Schedule 1 to be effective 4/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1764-000.
    Applicants: Amplified Power & Gas, LLC.
    Description: Supplement the record Docx 2010 problem to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.

    Accession Number: 20120514-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1775-000.
    Applicants: Southern Energy Solution Group, LLC.
    Description: Southern Energy Initial MBR Filing to be effective 5/
9/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1776-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company.
    Description: FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 10 to be effective 5/
14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1777-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company.
    Description: FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 6 to be effective 5/
14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1778-000.
    Applicants: DPL Energy, LLC.
    Description: FERC Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 5/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1779-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 11 Balanced Portfolio Compliance
from ER09-659 and EL12-2 to be effective 5/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1780-000.
    Applicants: PPL Ironwood, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Succession and Change in Status Notice to be
effective 5/14/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1781-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3319; Queue No. W4-
004A--AT10 to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1782-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Formula Transmission Rate to be effective
6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1783-000.
    Applicants: MXenergy Electric Inc.
    Description: Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 5/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1784-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Revisions to PJM Tariff, OA and RAA removing Obsolete
References to be effective 7/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1785-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-05-14 CAISO Credit Reforms Comp Filing to be
effective 4/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120514-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12.

    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: May 15, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12312 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P