			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 11, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-17466

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Application of    Frontier Airlines, Inc.,   filed  4/1/04 for:

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

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Kansas City, Missouri, and Cancun, Mexico.

The City of Kansas City filed an answer in support of Frontier’s
application.

Applicant rep:   Edward P. Faberman<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:  May 11, 2004, through  May
11, 2006

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

  		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and Mexico.

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

       XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

       XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted
is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7
of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.   Consistent with our policy, the
dormancy notice period will begin July 3, 2004, Frontier’s proposed
startup date for these services.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

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

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

											05/2004


CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP: Minnesota Power, Xcel Energy, and staffers for Senator Coleman ( MN)

MEETING___ XX__ SPEECH_____ PHONE CALL_____

DATE: August 24, 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: EPA, Washington DC, Ariel Rios North Building PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Minnesota specific concerns regarding the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). This included reviewing various modelling results and discussing CAIR impacts on electricity prices, emission quantities, and other topics.

ATTENDEES: See attached list COMMENTS:

ATTACHMENTS ( HANDOUTS): See attached Meeting information:

Name Organization Contact Info Sarah Dunham EPA/ OAR 202 343 9087 Misha Adamantiades EPA/ OAR 202 343 9093 Jim Ketcham Colwill EPA/ OAR 202 564 1676 Bob Meyers EPA/ OAR 202 564 7412 John A. O'Donnell Xcel Energy 202 788 5505 Sam Napolitano EPA/ OAR 202 343 9751 Frank Prager Xcel Energy 303 294 2108 Mike Cashin Minnesota Power 218 788 5642 x3339 Laun Hettinger Sen. Norm Coleman 202 224 5641 Jeanette Pablo Xcel Energy consultant 202 966 8209 Jeff Holmstead EPA/ OAR 202 564 7404 Benjamin Hengst EPA/ OAR 202 564 1495


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67326]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0851]

Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for holiday
fireworks at The Wharf DC on December 4, 2021, to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation
for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies
the safety zone for this event in Washington, DC. During the
enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the safety zone must
comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol
displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the
location identified in line no. 1 of table 2 to 33 CFR 165.506(h)(2)
from 7:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on December 4, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email MST3 Melissa Kelly, Sector
Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard:
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
regulation for holiday fireworks at The Wharf DC from 7:30 p.m. to 9
p.m. on December 4, 2021. This action is being taken to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation
for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, Sec.
165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for the fireworks
show which encompasses portions of the Washington Channel in the Upper
Potomac River. During the enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.
165.506(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the safety zone you
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: November 22, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-25846 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73392-73394]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0091; Notice 2]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (``MBAG'') and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
(``MBUSA'') (collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'') have determined that
certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance
report dated August 14, 2020. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on September 4, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces denial of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Williams, General Engineer,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-3018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019-2021
Mercedes-Benz A-Class, CLA-Class, GLA-Class, and GLB-Class motor
vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2
of FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.135).
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated August 14, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September
4, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition was published
with a 30-day public comment period, on December 11, 2020, in the
Federal Register (85 FR 80225). One comment was received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/, and
then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number
``NHTSA-2020-0091.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 56,223 of the following MY
2019-2021 Mercedes-Benz A-Class, CLA-Class, GLA-Class, and GLB-Class
motor vehicles, manufactured between October 8, 2018, and July 27,
2020, are potentially involved:

 2020 Mercedes-Benz A35 AMG
 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA45 AMG
 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA250
 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz A220
 2020-2021 Mercedes-Benz CLA250
 2020 Mercedes-Benz CLA35 AMG
 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA45 AMG
 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA35 AMG
 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLB250

    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance
is that the subject vehicles are not equipped with an acoustic or
optical device that warns the driver when the rear brake lining
requires replacement, and therefore, does not meet the requirements
specified in paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, the
subject vehicles are equipped with a service brake system that does not
indicate the wear condition of the rear service brakes.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 135 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. The wear condition of all
service brakes shall be indicated by either acoustic or optical devices
warning the driver at his or her driving position when lining
replacement is necessary or by way of visually checking the degree of
brake lining wear, from the outside or underside of the vehicle,
utilizing only the tools or equipment normally supplied with the
vehicle. The removal of wheels is permitted for this purpose.
    V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section are the views and arguments
provided by Mercedes-Benz. They do not reflect the views of NHTSA.
Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and states its belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    Mercedes-Benz submits that although the subject vehicles are
equipped with a service brake system that does not indicate the wear
condition of the rear service brakes, the front service brakes use an
electrical brake pad sensor to monitor the wear status of the front
brake pads. Mercedes-Benz explains that once the front service brakes
reach a thickness of \1/8\ inch or 3 mm, ``a warning lamp will
automatically display in the instrument cluster and will remain
permanently illuminated until the vehicle is serviced.'' Mercedes-Benz
states a message will also appear in the instrument cluster stating:
``Check brake pads. See Owner's Manual.'' Mercedes-Benz states that
while the driver is able to manually extinguish the indicator and
message, both the indicator and message will display at each ignition
cycle until the brake linings are replaced. Mercedes-Benz states that
the front brake lining will not become critical until 6,000 miles after
the warning indicator and message first appears.
    Mercedes-Benz further explains that ``the brake force distribution
is in a range of 71.9%-75.5% (front)/28.1%-24.5% (rear)'' causing the
lining on the front service brakes to wear faster than the lining on
the rear service brakes. Therefore, Mercedes-Benz explains, when the
driver goes to get the front brakes serviced, ``the standard work
instructions direct the technician to also inspect and evaluate the
status of all other sets of brake pads'' and the driver will be advised
if the rear brake linings are ``not sufficient to make it to the next
service interval.'' Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz argues the ``vehicle's
rear brakes will be inspected by a trained professional technician a
number of times before they ever need to be replaced.''
    Additionally, Mercedes-Benz states that in the event that the
subject vehicle is ``taken to an independent repair facility that did
not follow Mercedes-Benz's comprehensive brake pad inspection
protocols, there is not an increased safety risk.'' According to
Mercedes-Benz, if the rear brake lining becomes fully worn, the subject
vehicle ``would continue to meet the braking distance requirements of
FMVSS [No.] 135'' due to the brake force distribution described above
and the performance of the rear brakes. Furthermore, Mercedes-

Benz argues that if a driver of the subject vehicle had completely worn
rear braking linings, ``the driver will hear the unmistakable sound of
metal being pressed against the brake discs.''
    Mercedes-Benz states that it is not aware of any reports or
complaints about the issue from the field and it has corrected the
condition in production.
    Mercedes-Benz concluded by reiterating the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Mercedes-Benz's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
    VI. Public Comment: NHTSA received one comment from the public.
This comment was submitted by Ricquitta Johnson. The comment only
states the docket number for the notice of receipt and does not provide
any feedback or address the purpose of this petition.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of Mercedes-Benz's petition and
determined that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 135 requires all vehicles to have an
acoustic or optical warning device on all wheels, or a means of
visually checking the degree of brake lining wear from the outside or
underside of the vehicle by utilizing only the tools or equipment
normally supplied with the vehicle. The removal of wheels is also
permitted for this purpose. According to the petition's description of
the system at issue, the front wheels on the subject vehicles meet the
brake requirement in that they are equipped with electrical brake pad
sensors that monitor the front brake pads and provide an optical
warning to the driver once the brake pads reach a certain OEM
determined thickness. However, the rear wheels are neither equipped
with an optical or audible sensor to alert the driver once the rear
brake pads are below the OEM recommended thickness nor are the vehicles
supplied with a visual means of checking the degree of brake lining
wear from the outside or underside of the vehicle. Specifically, the
vehicle is lacking an inspection gauge with the necessary instructions
to check the wear of the brake pads on the rear axle from the outside
or underside of the vehicle.
    In its petition, Mercedes-Benz states that the front brakes provide
72-75% of the braking force. Due to this unequal brake force
distribution, the front brake pads will wear out faster than the rear
brake pads. Mercedes-Benz contends that anytime the front brake pads
are serviced at a Mercedes-Benz workshop or an independent work
facility, the standard work instructions are to inspect both the front
and rear brake pads to determine if the rear brake pads also need to be
replaced. Mercedes-Benz also states that if the rear brake pads are not
serviced at the time when the front pads are inspected and the rear
brake pads wear out, even completely, before the next scheduled brake
inspection, the front brakes and brake distribution will always be
adequate to meet the stopping requirements of FMVSS No. 135. Mercedes-
Benz claims that in the case where the rear brake pads are completely
worn out, the driver will hear an unmistakable sound of metal being
pressed against the brake discs which will alert them that the pads are
worn out.
    NHTSA finds that the repair scenario described by Mercedes-Benz
does not account for all drivers of Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Some
drivers may not follow brake service or maintenance schedules. Without
receiving a warning that the brake pads need to be replaced, these
drivers could continue to operate the vehicle for an extended period
once the rear brake pads reach the OEM determined minimum thickness. In
addition, the ``do it yourself (DIY)'' customers who may not have the
technical expertise of a Mercedes-Benz technician, could potentially
miss checking the condition of the rear brake pads during brake
servicing and, without a warning, continue to operate the vehicle for
an extended period once the rear brake pads reach the OEM determined
minimum thickness.
    Although Mercedes-Benz claims that the brake force distribution
described above and the performance of the front brakes are enough to
meet the stopping requirements of the regulation in the event the rear
brake lining is completely worn, Mercedes-Benz provided no data to
support this assertion. Additionally, with regard to Mercedes-Benz'
claim that the driver would hear the unmistakable sound of metal on the
rear disc once the rear pads completely wear out, no data was provided
to support this contention and further, the purpose of the standard is
to notify the driver prior to reaching such an extreme brake pad wear
state that most of the brake power on that wheel is lost. Mercedes-Benz
has not met its burden of persuasion and for the reasons described
herein NHTSA does not find that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
has decided that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion
that the subject FMVSS No. 135 noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby
denied, and Mercedes-Benz is consequently obligated to provide
notification and a free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Cem Hatipoglu,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-23527 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19467-19470]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1047; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-157-AD;
Amendment 39-18449; AD 2016-07-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that, during the assembly process, several gaps
between the two parts of the girt bar fittings for the aft passenger
doors were found to exceed tolerances. This AD requires an inspection
of the gap between the two parts of the girt bar fittings on left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) aft passenger doors, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect gaps
between the girt bar fittings. Detachment of a girt bar could lead to
the separation of the slide or slide-raft from the fuselage, making the
emergency exit inoperative, which could impede an emergency evacuation.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
1047.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
1047; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3533) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by a report that, during the assembly process,
several gaps between the two parts of the girt bar fittings for the aft
passenger doors were found to exceed tolerances. The NPRM proposed to
require an inspection of the gap between the two parts of the girt bar
fittings on LH and RH aft passenger doors, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect gaps
between the girt bar fittings. Detachment of a girt bar could lead to
the separation of the slide or slide-raft from the fuselage, making the
emergency exit inoperative, which could impede an emergency evacuation.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request To Reference Later Revision of Service Information

    United Airlines (UAL) proposed to update the reference to the
service information to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision
01, dated August 29, 2014. UAL also suggested that the service
information update would also update the effectivity for the applicable
inspection.
    We agree to reference the latest service information, Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014,
which updates the effectivity, and have revised paragraph (g) of this
AD accordingly. We have also added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to
provide credit for actions done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1289, dated May 28, 2014, and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Request To Clarify the Tolerances for the Gap Size

    UAL requested clarification on the inspection task's initial gap
requirement tolerance and the required gap tolerance for trimmed
latches. UAL stated that it seems the initial inspection in Task
531289-832-601/602-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289,
Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies that a gap equal to or
less than 4 millimeters (mm) (0.158 inch) is acceptable without the
need for further action, but other tasks for post-trimming and post-
latch-replacement inspections specify replacement if the gap is less
than 1 mm (0.0394 inch). UAL noted that those inspection tasks
reference a figure in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision
01, dated August 29, 2014, which specifies the gap should be between 1
mm (0.0394 inch) and 4 mm (0.158 inch). UAL also stated that the
trimming action in Task 531289-831-601-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies trimming
the latch again if the gap is still greater than 4 mm (0.158 inch),
which seems to conflict with a figure that gives one trim dimension
without any tolerance. UAL further stated that it should be clearer
that the latch should be trimmed as many times as required with a
maximum trim dimension of 0.5 mm (0.0197 inch) until the required gap
tolerance is achieved.
    We agree to provide clarification. Figure A-SBCAA of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies
0.5 mm (0.0197 inch) as the limit of the edge margin, which must not be
exceeded while trimming the latch part during the gap adjustment. We
find that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated
August 29, 2014, is clear on the initial gap tolerance, which specifies
corrective actions if the gap is initially greater than 4 mm (0.158
inch). The corrective actions include trimming and determining the gap
after trimming. If the gap is less than 1 mm (0.0394 inch) or greater
than 4 mm (0.158 inch) after trimming, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies additional
corrective actions. No change has been made to this final rule in this
regard.

Request To Address Issue of Obsolete Part Numbers

    UAL stated that the NPRM and the referenced service information
(Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1289, dated May 28, 2014, and
Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014) do not identify part number
D531125020000 as obsolete, which is identified in the illustrated parts
catalog (IPC) as an acceptable part. UAL pointed out that the
referenced service information introduces new part numbers D5348027920-
200/400 as part of a corrective action, but does not specify the new
part numbers as a part of an action to require new or revised latch or
girt bar assembly parts. UAL asserts that, without a revised IPC or
specific steps in the service information, there is a risk that the old
part number could be used in the future, and lead to an incorrect gap
after accomplishing the inspection required by this AD.
    We agree to clarify the issue. This AD refers to Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD. We have determined the information specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29,
2014, is adequate. In addition, the requirements of an AD take
precedence over any specifications in an IPC, which is not an FAA-
approved document. We recommend that operators work with the
manufacturer to ensure there are no discrepancies in the IPC. It is the
responsibility of operators to apply necessary controls to maintain the
airplane in accordance with the required configuration of an AD. No
change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated
August 29, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a
detailed inspection of the gap in the girt bar fittings of the aft
passenger doors, LH and RH sides, and corrective actions.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 838 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $213,690, or $255 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $435, for a cost of
$775 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-07-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-18449. Docket No. FAA-2014-1047;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-157-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD,
except those on which Airbus Modification 154966 has been embodied
during production.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that, during the assembly
process, several gaps between the two parts of the girt bar fittings
for the aft passenger doors were found to exceed tolerances. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect gaps between the
girt bar fittings. Detachment of a girt bar could lead to the
separation of the slide or slide-raft from the fuselage, making the
emergency exit inoperative, which could impede an emergency
evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, within 36 months
after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the
gap in the girt bar fittings of the aft passenger doors, left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29,
2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(h) Exception

    For any airplane that has been modified to a configuration where
one or both LH and RH aft passenger doors are permanently
inoperative or deactivated: If any aft passenger door is
reactivated, after reactivation but before further flight, do the
detailed inspection of the reactivated aft passenger door(s) and all
applicable corrective actions, as required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1289, dated May 28, 2014, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests
identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or
tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (3) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-
0178, dated July 25, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1047.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated
August 29, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 20, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07028 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 38073]
[DOCID:fr12jy07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP01-245-023, RP06-569-002 and RP07-338-001]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

July 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing tariff sheets reflecting
incremental electric power rate surcharge for Cherokee Expansion
Service customers and revisions to the electric power rates for system
transportation customers. Transco states that this filing is being made
pursuant to the Commission's Order Denying Rehearing and Accepting
Compliance Filings in Docket No. RP01-245-019, et al. issued June 7,
2007. The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is August 1,
2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13516 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14817-14821]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-RO4-OAR-2005-NC-0002-200538(a); FRL-8049-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in final form on March 23, 2005.
The SIP revision provides the second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Areas, which are composed of the following four counties:
Mecklenburg (Charlotte Area); Durham and Wake (Raleigh-Durham Area);
and Forsyth (Winston-Salem Area). The second 10-year maintenance plan
includes new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for carbon monoxide
for the year 2015. EPA is approving this SIP revision, including the
new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide, because it satisfies the
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas.
    In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on
its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs for
the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year carbon monoxide
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas. EPA determined that the 2015 MVEBs are adequate through a
previous action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 23, 2006 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 24, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002'', Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. : ``EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Amanetta Wood
can also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Is EPA's Adequacy
Determination for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    In 1994, based on measured air quality data, the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas were able to demonstrate
attainment with the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) due to numerous control measures implemented in each
of the respective Areas. As a result of the measured air quality data,
North Carolina petitioned

EPA for redesignation of these three Areas to attainment for carbon
monoxide. In 1994, EPA redesignated the Winston-Salem Area to
attainment based on the measured air quality data and a 10-year
maintenance plan submitted for the Winston-Salem Area (59 FR 48399). In
1995, EPA redesignated both the Charlotte Area and the Raleigh-Durham
Area to attainment based on the measured air quality data and the 10-
year maintenance plan submitted for these areas (60 FR 39258).
    The air quality maintenance plan is a requirement of the 1990 CAA
amendments for nonattainment areas that come into compliance with the
NAAQS to assure their continued maintenance of that standard. Eight
years after redesignation to attainment, section 175A(b) of the CAA
requires the state to submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period (this is known as the second
10-year maintenance plan). The second 10-year maintenance plan updates
the original 10-year carbon monoxide maintenance plan for the next 10-
year period. Thus, pursuant to the CAA section 175A(b), North Carolina
was required to submit the second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas demonstrating that
it would continue to attain the carbon monoxide NAAQS in those Areas
through 2015.

II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?

    On March 23, 2005, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
submitted a SIP revision to EPA that provided for the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA. This second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas includes a new carbon monoxide emission inventory for 2000 which
reflects emission controls applicable for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas, and actual and projected emissions for
2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The SIP revision also establishes new MVEBs
for carbon monoxide for 2015 for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas.
    The emission reduction measures for carbon monoxide emissions
implemented in the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas
from 1995 to 2005, and control measures that are projected to occur
between 2005 and 2015, are accounted for in the 2000 emission inventory
and projected emissions estimates. The following three tables provide
emissions data and projections for carbon monoxide. The on-road mobile
portion of the data was calculated with Mobile 6.2.

Table 1.--Charlotte Carbon Monoxide Area--Mecklenburg County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
                                                      2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...........................................        24.97       142.23       522.39         5.58       695.17
2005...........................................        29.42       160.64       431.03         6.43       627.52
2010...........................................        32.42       171.27       357.99         7.45       569.13
2015...........................................        34.96       181.77       328.79         8.27       553.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2.--Raleigh-Durham Carbon Monoxide Area--Durham and Wake County Emission Inventory and Projected CO
                                              Emissions (2000-2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durham County:
    2000.......................................        13.45        31.98       178.79         0.86       225.08
    2005.......................................        15.44        34.12       152.32         0.91       202.79
    2010.......................................        16.73        31.52       118.71         0.98       167.94
    2015.......................................        17.99        28.82       105.30         1.05       153.16
Wake County:
    2000.......................................        35.21        87.26       419.46         1.36       543.29
    2005.......................................        41.45        97.02       362.51         1.44       502.42
    2010.......................................        45.36       102.61       300.12         1.57       449.66
    2015.......................................        49.21       108.12       282.39         1.69       441.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3.--Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide Area--Forsyth County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
                                                      2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...........................................        25.13        40.35       259.88         2.56       327.92
2005...........................................        29.58        44.07       211.02         2.49       287.16
2010...........................................        32.10        43.50       168.17         2.61       246.38
2015...........................................        34.51        43.00       145.05         2.76       225.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during
one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas continued to attain the carbon
monoxide NAAQS based on air quality data for the year 2000. Therefore,
in this SIP revision, the emissions from the year 2000 are used to
calculate a new attainment emissions level for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The emissions from point, area,
nonroad, and mobile sources in 2000 equal 695.17 tons per day (tpd) of
carbon monoxide for Mecklenburg County, 225.08 tpd for Durham County,
543.29 tpd for Wake County, and 327.92 tpd for Forsyth County. The
projected carbon monoxide emissions for the year 2015 equal 553.79 tpd
for Mecklenburg County, 153.16 tpd for Durham County, 441.41 tpd for
Wake County, and 225.32 tpd for Forsyth County. These emission
calculations were made using the MOBILE6.2 model and the most recent
version of the nonroad model. The projected emissions are lower than
the attainment level of emissions, thus demonstrating continued
maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
    The safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin is for the
entire Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas and is sub-
allocated by county. The safety margin credit, or a portion thereof,
can be allocated to the transportation sector, however, the total
emission level must stay below the attainment level. The safety margin
for carbon monoxide is the difference between these amounts or, in this
case, 141.39 tpd for Mecklenburg County for 2015, 71.92 tpd for Durham
County for 2015, 101.88 tpd for Wake County for 2015, and 102.59 tpd
for Forsyth County for 2015. The emissions are projected to maintain
the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' air quality
consistent with the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
    Maintenance plans and other control strategy SIPs create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system.
    The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to establish and revise MVEBs in a SIP. In
this SIP revision, the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas used MOBILE6.2 to establish MVEBs for carbon monoxide for the
year 2015. The State of North Carolina has chosen to allocate the
entire safety margin to the transportation section. These MVEBs are
listed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

                      Table 4.1.--Mecklenburg County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          328.79           141.39           470.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 4.2.--Durham County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          105.30            71.92           177.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 4.3.--Wake County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          282.39           101.88           384.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table 4.4.--Forsyth County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2015 on-road
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin      MVEB with
                                                                (tons per day)                    safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          145.05           102.59           247.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MVEBs presented in Table 4.5 are directly reflective of the
combined onroad (or ``highway'') emissions for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas for carbon monoxide, plus allocation
from the available safety margin. After allocation of the safety margin
to the MVEBs there is no available safety margin for future allocation.
In summary, the new carbon monoxide MVEBs for the year 2015 are 470.18
tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham County; 384.27 tpd
for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County. The MVEBs for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas that the

transportation partners must use are provided in the table below.

                      Table 4.5.--2015 MVEBs for CO
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mecklenburg County.............................................   470.18
Durham County..................................................   177.22
Wake County....................................................   384.27
Forsyth County.................................................   247.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?

    EPA is approving North Carolina's SIP revision pertaining to the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' second 10-year
maintenance plan, including the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide.

IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Are EPA's Adequacy
Determinations for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?

    Under Section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e. be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. Under the transportation conformity rule, at 40 CFR part 93,
projected emissions from transportation plans and programs must be
equal to or less than MVEBs for the area. If a transportation plan does
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    Until MVEBs in a SIP submittal are approved by EPA, they cannot be
used for transportation conformity purposes unless EPA makes an
affirmative finding that the MVEBs contained therein are ``adequate.''
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, those MVEBs can be used by the
State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation projects ``conform'' to the SIP even though the approval
of the SIP revision containing those MVEBs has not yet been finalized.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of MVEBs in
submitted SIPs are set out in EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on the status
of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs
for the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year maintenance
plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The
adequacy comment period for the 2015 MVEBs began on March 29, 2005,
with EPA's posting of availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy
Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm). The adequacy comment

period for these MVEBs closed on April 28, 2005. No comments on this
submittal were received during EPA's adequacy comment period.
    In a letter dated April 29, 2005, to B. Keith Overcash, Director of
the Division of Air Quality NCDENR, EPA informed the State of its
intention to find the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Subsequently, in a Final Federal
Register notice dated May 6, 2005, (70 FR 24037) EPA found the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' 2015 carbon
monoxide MVEBs adequate. These MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
contained in the Transportation Conformity Rule. The 2015 MVEBs for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas are currently being
used for transportation conformity determinations. For regional
emission analysis years that involve the year 2015 or beyond, the
applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation
conformity analysis will be the following 2015 MVEBs for carbon
monoxide: 470.18 tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham
County; 384.27 tpd for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996,

generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 23, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone.

    Dated: March 14, 2006.
A. Stanley Maiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon
Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register
          Provision               State effective date          EPA approval date               citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham,     March 18, 2005............  March 24, 2006............  [Insert first page of
 and Winston-Salem Carbon                                                               publication]
 Monoxide Second 10-Year
 Maintenance Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-2870 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 45611-45612]
[DOCID:fr03au10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-471-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission LP; Notice of Application

July 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on July 15, 2010, Texas Eastern Transmission
(Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in
Docket No. CP10-471-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to construct and operate approximately 8.4
miles of 16-inch diameter natural gas pipeline and associated
facilities to enable Texas Eastern to provide up to 112,000 dekatherms
per day (Dth/d) of firm lateral line transportation service to the Hot
Spring Energy Facility in Hot Spring County, Arkansas and to establish
initial recourse rates for firm and interruptible transportation
service on the facilities to be constructed, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. 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. For assistance, call (866)
208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Arthur C. Diestel, Analyst, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to Marcy F. Collins, Associate General
Counsel, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas
77251-1642, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to James D. Seegers, Vinson & Elkins
L.L.P., 1001 Fannin, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77002, or by calling
(713) 758-2939 (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: August 17, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18968 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35877-35879]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3643-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): OATT
Formula Rate Revised Schedules 3, 3A, 5 and 6 to be effective 7/25/
2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3766-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:

G773 Termination (2) to be effective 8/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3767-000.
    Applicants: CinCap IV, LLC.
    Description: CinCap IV, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15: Cancel
Database to be effective 8/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3768-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C.
    Description: Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. submits
tariff filing per 35.15: Cancel Database to be effective 8/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3769-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: WSPP Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
Incorporation of Rate Schedule into WSPP Agreement (Westar Energy) to
be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3770-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: NYISO Compliance Filing--Tariff Revisions,
Minimum Oil Burn Settlement to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3771-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W1-114; Original Service Agreement No. 2939
to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3772-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W2-076; Original Service Agreement No. 2933
to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3773-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position V4-038--Original Service Agreement Nos.
2940 & 2941 to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3774-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PWRPA 2nd Amendment to Appendix B to IA and WDT
Service Agreement, to be effective 6/13/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3775-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Notice of Termination
of Lompoc GSFA and GIA.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES11-32-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Supplement to Application for Authorization to Issue
Short-Term Debt of Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110609-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 20, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15159 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P