[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11097-11100]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD14-7-000]

Third-Party Provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control and
Regulation and Frequency Response Services; Notice of Workshop

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene a workshop to obtain input on third-party provision
of reactive supply and voltage control and regulation and frequency
response services. The workshop will be held on April 22, 2014 in the
Commission Meeting Room at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Members of the
Commission may attend.
    Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. You may
register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/04-22-14-form.asp.
    Those wishing to participate in the program for this event should
nominate themselves through the on-line registration form no later than
March 14, 2014 at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/04-22-14-speaker-form.asp.
    The Commission will issue a subsequent notice providing the
detailed agenda for the workshop.
    In Order No. 784, the Commission revised its regulations to foster
competition and transparency in ancillary services markets.\1\ Among
other things, the Commission revised Part 35 of its regulations to
reflect reforms to its Avista \2\ policy governing the sale of
ancillary services at market-based rates to public utility transmission
providers. The Commission implemented these reforms out of a concern
that the Avista restriction limiting the sale of ancillary services at
market-based rates absent a showing of lack of market power to a public
utility transmission provider for purposes of satisfying its open
access transmission (OATT) requirements was proving to be an
unreasonable barrier to entry, unnecessarily restricting access to
potential suppliers.\3\ Based on the record developed in that
proceeding, the Commission relaxed the Avista restrictions with respect
to the sale of Energy Imbalance, Generator Imbalance, Operating
Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting and
Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, Order No.
784, 78 FR 46,178 (July 30, 2013), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349, at
PP 2-3 (2013).
    \2\ Avista Corp., 87 FERC ] 61,223, order on reh'g, 89 FERC ]
61,136 (1999) (Avista).
    \3\ See Order No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission found that the technical and geographic
requirements associated with Reactive Supply and Voltage Control
(Schedule 2) and Regulation and Frequency Response (Schedule 3)
services precluded application of the existing market power screens to
the sale of those services. Instead, the Commission provided other
options for such sales (price cap and competitive solicitation,
described further below) and stated its intention to gather more
information regarding the technical, economic and market issues
concerning the provision of these services in a new, separate
proceeding. The Commission stated that such proceeding will consider,
among other things, the ease and cost-effectiveness of relevant
equipment upgrades, the need for and availability of appropriate
special arrangements such as dynamic scheduling or pseudo-tie
arrangements, and other technical requirements related to the provision
of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 services.
    Consistent with the Commission's stated intent in Order No. 784,
staff would like to receive input from interested persons regarding the
technical, economic and market issues concerning the provision of
Schedule 2

and Schedule 3 services. To facilitate this discussion, staff provides
additional background regarding Commission policies and recent actions
with respect to reactive power, frequency response, and frequency
regulation.

Reactive Power

    Reactive power is a critical component of operating an alternating
current (AC) electricity system, and is required to control system
voltage within appropriate ranges for efficient and reliable operation
of the transmission system. At times generators or other resources must
either supply or consume reactive power for the transmission system to
maintain voltage levels required to reliably supply electricity from
generation to load.
    Payments for reactive power capability vary by region. Some regions
do not pay for reactive power capability within the required power
factor range, finding that it is a requirement of generator operation
under good utility practice. Other regions pay generators a cost-based
rate for reactive power capability, since generators incur costs to
provide that capability and paying generators aligns incentives with
desired behavior for system flexibility. Where such cost-based rates
are paid, providers of reactive power generally are authorized to
receive payment pursuant to tariffs on file with the Commission. The
Avista policy permitting some ancillary service sales without a showing
of lack of market power, did not apply to Schedule 2 service.\4\
Accordingly, suppliers wishing to sell Schedule 2 service at market-
based rates have always needed to demonstrate a lack of market power
with respect to the reactive power product before such sales would be
authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id. n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 784, the Commission nevertheless evaluated whether the
existing market power screens could be applied to the sale of Schedule
2 service without significant modification.\5\ The Commission found
that the more stringent technical and geographic considerations
associated with Schedule 2 service suggest that it is not the simple
combination of basic energy and capacity products. The Commission noted
that most comments addressing the sale of Schedule 2 service agree that
the set of resources considered by the existing market power screens
for energy and capacity would differ too significantly from the set of
resources that would be considered by market power analyses designed
specifically for Schedule 2 service. The Commission therefore concluded
that the record before it did not support application of the existing
market power screens without significant modification to Schedule 2
service. Instead, the Commission allowed market-based sales of Schedule
2 service to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to
satisfy its OATT requirements if the sale is made pursuant to a
competitive solicitation that meets certain specified requirements,\6\
or when such sale is made at or below the buying public utility
transmission provider's own Schedule 2 rate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. PP 59-61.
    \6\ Id. P 99.
    \7\ Id. PP 82-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the workshop, staff would like to discuss the following:
     The extent to which reactive power can be traded across
balancing areas in a manner consistent with existing market power
screens for energy and capacity;
     Whether there should be payment for reactive power
capability within the required power factor range;
     How cost-based payments for reactive power capability
should be structured; and
     What are the obligations of generators receiving payment
for reactive power capability?

Frequency Response and Frequency Regulation

    In Order No. 784, the Commission also evaluated whether the
existing market power screens for sales of energy and capacity could be
applied to the sale of Schedule 3 service without significant
modification.\8\ The Commission discussed Schedule 3 as a single
service in Order No. 784, focusing primarily on AGC-based frequency
regulation. However, frequency response is distinct from frequency
regulation.\9\ Frequency response involves the autonomous, automatic,
and rapid reaction of an individual turbine-generator or other resource
to change its output to rapidly dampen large changes in frequency,
generally through appropriate governor settings. Frequency regulation
is produced from either manual or automated dispatch (through Automatic
Generation Control (AGC)) from a centralized system.\10\ In Order No.
888, the Commission found that governor-based autonomous frequency
response did not merit a separate ancillary service because at the time
the same resources that respond to regulation signals also provided
governor response under then-standard industry practices.\11\ As a
result, the language of Order No. 888 discussing Schedule 3 was focused
primarily on AGC-based central dispatch.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. PP 59-61.
    \9\ As used herein, frequency response refers to primary
frequency response and frequency regulation refers to secondary
frequency response.
    \10\ See Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting
Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 at PP 8-9
(2014).
    \11\ ``While the services provided by Regulation Service and
Frequency Response Service are different, they are complimentary
services that are made available using the same equipment.''
Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036, slip at 212 (1996),
order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048, order
on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub
nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1
(2002).
    \12\ ``Regulation and Frequency Response Service is accomplished
by committing on-line generation whose output is raised or lowered
(predominantly through the use of automatic generation control
equipment). . .'' See OATT Schedule 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it remains true that most generating units capable of
providing frequency regulation are also capable of providing frequency
response, standard industry practices have changed and it is no longer
clear that most resources providing frequency regulation are also
providing frequency response. Accordingly, staff is evaluating whether
additional market mechanisms are needed to facilitate the provision of
either frequency response or frequency regulation in the organized or
bilateral markets. For purposes of considering the technical, economic
and market issues concerning the provision of Schedule 3 service, staff
believes it would be productive to focus on frequency response and
frequency regulation separately.

Frequency Regulation

    Frequency regulation is used to balance generation, interchange and
demand by managing the response of available resources within
minutes.\13\ Frequency regulation is provided under different market
mechanisms in the organized and bilateral markets. Regional
transmission operators (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs)
generally procure frequency regulation through auction-based market
mechanisms in which payments are intended to cover the range of costs

incurred to provide service.\14\ Resources wishing to sell frequency
regulation in RTO/ISO markets are authorized to do so pursuant to their
MBR tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 at P 9. The level of
frequency regulation required for each balancing authority area is
not fixed, but is set by each balancing authority area to meet the
requirements of NERC Reliability Standards.
    \14\ Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized
Wholesale Power Markets, Order No. 755, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,324, at PP 6-11 (2011), reh'g denied, Order No. 755-A, 138 FERC ]
61,123 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Outside the RTO/ISO markets, Avista authorizes suppliers who cannot
show a lack of market power with respect to Schedule 3 service to
nevertheless sell that service with certain restrictions.\15\ One such
restriction is that the authorization provided by Avista does not apply
to sales to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to
satisfy its own OATT requirements to offer ancillary services to its
own customers.\16\ In Order No. 784, the Commission evaluated whether
the existing market power screens could be applied with respect to the
sale of Schedule 3 service without significant modification, as a way
to permit such sellers to avoid the otherwise applicable Avista
restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Additionally, any seller who can successfully demonstrate a
lack of market power with respect to Schedule 3 service would
receive authorization from the Commission to sell to any entity
without restrictions, including public utility transmission
providers.
    \16\ See Avista, 87 FERC ] 61,223 at n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in Order No. 888, the Commission's evaluation of this issue in
Order No. 784 focused primarily on frequency regulation, not frequency
response.\17\ The Commission concluded that the existing market power
screens for energy and capacity were inadequate for analyzing Schedule
3 service because there are significant technical requirements, such as
the need for AGC equipment, that limit the set of resources capable of
supplying Schedule 3 service. The Commission agreed in principle with
commenters that potential competitors could be viewed as existing
competitors for purposes of market power analysis if it is known that
they can install needed equipment rapidly and profitably in response to
appropriate price signals, but found that the record does not
conclusively support the notion that such equipment upgrades (e.g., to
install AGC equipment in an existing generator) can be accomplished in
such a manner. The Commission also noted that the record indicates that
third-party sellers of Schedule 3 service might need to enter into or
facilitate special transmission service arrangements between
neighboring balancing authorities, such as dynamic scheduling or
pseudo-tie arrangements, in order to make sales outside of their home
balancing authority area. Because this fact could impact the
appropriateness of using the default geographic market reflected in the
existing market power screens for sales of energy and capacity, and
thus the ability to apply those screens to sales of Schedule 3 service
without significant modification, the Commission concluded that the
record before it did not support application of the existing market
power screens for sales of energy and capacity to sales of Schedule 3
service. Instead, the Commission allowed market-based sales of Schedule
3 service to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to
satisfy its OATT requirements if the sale is made pursuant to a
competitive solicitation that meets certain specified requirements,\18\
or when such sale is made at or below the buying public utility
transmission provider's own Schedule 3 rate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Order No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349 at PP 59-61.
    \18\ Id. P 99.
    \19\ Id. PP 82-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the workshop, staff would like to discuss the technical,
economic and market issues concerning the provision of Schedule 3
service as it relates to frequency regulation outside of the RTO
regions, including:
     To what extent do existing resources lack the necessary
AGC equipment to provide frequency regulation?
     Why do existing resources that have AGC equipment choose
not to use it?
     What is the ease and expense of adding AGC equipment to an
existing resource?
     Are any special transmission scheduling provisions needed
to enable the provision of frequency regulation from one balancing
authority area to another? If so, what is the ease and expense of
implementing them?
     Are there efforts underway to make the provision of
frequency regulation easier?

Frequency Response

    Sufficient frequency response is necessary to stabilize frequency
within an interconnection immediately following the sudden loss of
generation or load. The ability of a power system to withstand a sudden
loss of generation or load depends on the presence and adequacy of
resources capable of providing rapid incremental power changes to
counterbalance the disturbance and arrest a frequency deviation. Most
frequency response is provided by the automatic and autonomous actions
of turbine-generators that have appropriate governor settings, with
some response being provided by load resources that have capabilities
similar to autonomous governor response.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 at P 6. Once it becomes
effective, NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 will establish a
minimum frequency response obligation for each balancing authority
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 16, 2014 the Commission issued Order No. 794, Frequency
Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability Standard. The now-
approved NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 establishes a minimum
Frequency Response Obligation for each balancing authority areas or
frequency response sharing group; provides a uniform calculation of
frequency response measure; establishes Frequency Bias Settings that
set values closer to actual balancing authority frequency response; and
encourages coordinated AGC operation.\21\ By imposing a requirement on
balancing authority areas and frequency response sharing groups to
provide frequency response, Order No. 794 will have the effect of
transitioning frequency response from what was historically considered
an interconnection-wide system characteristic to a distinct balancing
service that specific entities must deliver. Recognizing this, the
Commission issued a separate docket in July 2013 to explore the market
implications of the new frequency response and frequency bias setting
requirements, including potential impacts of the frequency bias setting
being different from actual frequency response; potential market and
commercial impacts of not accounting for transmission limitations and
historical flows when calculating frequency response obligations;
crediting load resources as part of the frequency response obligation;
the potential need for compensating frequency response resources; and
any other potential impacts on transmission capacity or ancillary
services.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. P 1.
    \22\ Market Implications of Frequency, Response and Frequency
Bias Setting Requirements, Notice of Request for Comments, 144 FERC
] 61,058 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a public utility transmission provider using its own
resources to provide Schedule 3 service would likely recover most of
its costs of providing governor-based frequency response along with its
costs for AGC-based frequency regulation under OATT Schedule 3, to the
extent the same units are providing both services, there are few market
mechanisms in place regarding compensation for frequency response as a
stand-alone service. Unlike frequency regulation, frequency response
has not been defined as a

product in the RTO/ISO markets. And while the authorization provided in
Avista would apply to frequency response, the restriction on sales to a
public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its own
OATT requirements to offer ancillary services to its own customers
effectively precludes development of a market for frequency response.
These concerns along with the recently authorized reliability standard
have created the need for Commission Staff to request input regarding
existing regulatory and tariff provisions as well as potential market
implications for frequency response service.
    At the workshop, staff would like to discuss the technical,
economic and market issues concerning the provision of Schedule 3
service as it relates to frequency response, including:
     To what extent should existing resources be required to
provide their inherent quantity of frequency response as part of their
existing obligations, with any shortfall in achieving the balancing
authority area's frequency response obligation being procured through
tariff or market mechanisms such as in ERCOT;
     Could competitive, market-based procurement of primary
frequency response performance be structured to address potential
market power concerns;
     Whether provision of autonomous governor response could be
traded in a manner that is consistent with the existing market power
screens for sales of energy and capacity;
     To what extent can existing resources be equipped with
governors, or other control equipment that can serve the same function,
and how expensive or time consuming would such a retrofit be;
     Since governor-based autonomous frequency response would
not require any dispatch signal from a balancing area operator, would
any special dispatch or transmission scheduling provisions be needed to
provide the service from resources in a neighboring balancing authority
area;
     Could competitive procurement of primary frequency
response be structured to avoid increases in Transmission Reliability
Margin, avoid barriers to non-conventional resources, and assure the
performance will be consistent with the Commission-approved balancing
authority area obligation, assure the generators providing primary
frequency response achieve appropriate speed and magnitude of power
output;
     How could cost-based payments for primary frequency
response performance be structured;
     To what extent do existing resources lack the necessary
equipment or fail to utilize the appropriate settings on that equipment
to provide primary frequency response;
     Why do existing resources that have the necessary
equipment to provide primary frequency response choose not to use it or
to absorb response; and,
     Are penalties for deviating from generation schedules
viewed as a serious impediment to the provision of frequency response?
    The workshop will not be transcribed. However, there will be a free
webcast of the workshop. Anyone with Internet access interested in
viewing this workshop can do so by navigating to the FERC Calendar of
Events at www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The
event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection
provides technical support for the webcasts and offers the option of
listening to the workshop via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any
questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the requested accommodations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of External Affairs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rahim Amerkhail (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04278 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17325-17327]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0325; Notice No. 25-459-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus, A350-900 Series Airplane; Passenger
Seats With Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A350-900
series airplane. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design
feature(s) associated with seats that include non-traditional, large,
non-metallic panels that would affect survivability during a post-crash
fire event. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is March 14,
2012. We must receive your comments by May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2012-0325]
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room @W12-
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, FAA, Airframe/Cabin
Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested and the FAA
approved an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
June 28, 2009. The A350-900 series has a conventional layout with twin
wing-mounted Rolls Royce Trent engines. It features a twin aisle 9-
abreast economy class layout, and accommodates side-by-side placement
of LD-3 containers in the cargo compartment. The basic A350-900 series
configuration accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class
arrangement. The design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a Maximum Take-
Off Weight of 591,000 lbs. Airbus proposes the A350-900 series to be
certified for extended operations (ETOPS) beyond 180 minutes at entry
into service for up to a 420-minute maximum diversion time.
    The applicable airplane regulations, Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, do not require seats to meet the more-
stringent flammability standards required of large, non-metallic panels
in the cabin interior. At the time the applicable rules were written,
seats were designed with a metal frame covered by fabric, not with
large, non-metallic panels. Seats also met the then-recently adopted
standards for flammability of seat cushions. With the seat design being
mostly fabric and metal, the contribution to a fire in the cabin had
been minimized and was not considered a threat. For these reasons,
seats did not need to be tested to heat-release and smoke-emission
requirements.
    Seat designs have now evolved to occasionally include non-
traditional, large, non-metallic panels. Taken in total, the surface
area of these panels is on the same order as the sidewall and overhead
stowage bin interior panels. To provide the level of passenger
protection intended by the airworthiness standards, these non-
traditional, large, non-metallic panels in the cabin must meet the
standards of part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V, heat-release and
smoke-emission requirements.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must

show that the A350-900 series meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR
part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-128.
    The FAA has determined that Airbus A350-900 series airplanes must
comply with the following sections: Sec.  25.853(a) and Sec.
25.853(c), and Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the A350-900 series because of a novel
or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under
Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model or series
for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model
be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same
or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions
would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the A350-900 series must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The A350-900 series will incorporate the following novel or unusual
design features: Passenger seats that incorporate non-traditional,
large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal frame
covered by fabric. The flammability properties of these panels have
been shown to significantly affect the survivability of occupants of
the cabin in the case of fire. These seats are considered a novel
design for transport category airplanes that include Amendment 25-61
and Amendment 25-66 in the certification basis, and were not considered
when those airworthiness standards were established.
    The existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate
safety standards for seat designs that incorporate non-traditional,
large, non-metallic panels. In order to provide a level of safety that
is equivalent to that provided by the balance of the cabin, additional
airworthiness standards, in the form of special conditions, are
necessary. These special conditions supplement Sec.  25.853. The
requirements contained in these special conditions consist of applying
the identical test conditions required of all other large panels in the
cabin, to seats with non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels.

Definition of ``Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panel''

    A non-traditional, large, non-metallic panel, in this case, is
defined as a panel with exposed-surface areas greater than 1.5 square
feet installed per seat place. The panel may consist of either a single
component or multiple components in a concentrated area. Examples of
parts of the seat where these non-traditional panels are installed
include, but are not limited to: Seat backs, bottoms and leg/foot
rests, kick panels, back shells, credenzas and associated furniture.
Examples of traditional exempted parts of the seat include: Arm caps,
armrest close-outs such as end bays and armrest-styled center consoles,
food trays, video monitors and shrouds.

Clarification of ``Exposed''

    ``Exposed'' includes those panels directly exposed to the passenger
cabin in the traditional sense, plus those panels enveloped such as by
a dress cover. Traditional fabrics or leathers currently used on seats
are excluded from these special conditions. These materials must still
comply with Sec.  25.853(a) and Sec.  25.853(c) if used as a covering
for a seat cushion, or Sec.  25.853(a) if installed elsewhere on the
seat. Non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels covered with
traditional fabrics or leathers will be tested without their coverings
or covering attachments.

Discussion

    In the early 1980s the FAA conducted extensive research on the
effects of post-crash flammability in the passenger cabin. As a result
of this research and service experience, the FAA adopted new standards
for interior surfaces associated with large surface area parts.
Specifically, the rules require measurement of heat release and smoke
emission (part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V) for the affected parts.
Heat release has been shown to have a direct correlation with post-
crash fire survival time. Materials that comply with the standards
(i.e., Sec. 25.853 entitled ``Compartment interiors'' as amended by
Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66) extend survival time by
approximately 2 minutes over materials that do not comply.
    At the time these standards were written the potential application
of the requirements of heat release and smoke emission to seats was
explored. The seat frame itself was not a concern because it was
primarily made of aluminum and there were only small amounts of non-
metallic materials. It was determined that the overall effect on
survivability was negligible, whether or not the food trays met the
heat release and smoke requirements. The requirements therefore did not
address seats. The preambles to both the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM), Notice No. 85-10 (50 FR 15038, April 16, 1985) and the Final
Rule at Amendment 25-61 (51 FR 26206, July 21, 1986), specifically note
that seats were excluded ``because the recently-adopted standards for
flammability of seat cushions will greatly inhibit involvement of the
seats.''
    Subsequently, the Final Rule at Amendment 25-83 (60 FR 6615, March
6, 1995) clarified the definition of minimum panel size: ``It is not
possible to cite a specific size that will apply in all installations;
however, as a general rule, components with exposed-surface areas of
one square foot or less may be considered small enough that they do not
have to meet the new standards. Components with exposed-surface areas
greater than two square feet may be considered large enough that they
do have to meet the new standards. Those with exposed-surface areas
greater than one square foot, but less than two square feet, must be
considered in conjunction with the areas of the cabin in which they are
installed before a determination could be made.''
    In the late 1990s, the FAA issued Policy Memorandum 97-112-39,
Guidance for Flammability Testing of Seat/Console Installations,
October 17, 1997 (http://rgl.faa.gov). That memo was issued when it
became clear that seat designs were evolving to include large, non-
metallic panels with surface areas that would impact survivability
during a cabin fire event, comparable to partitions or galleys. The
memo noted that large surface area panels must comply with heat release
and smoke emission requirements, even if they were attached to a seat.
If the FAA had not issued such policy, seat designs could have been
viewed as a loophole to the airworthiness standards that would result
in an unacceptable decrease in survivability during a cabin fire event.
    In October of 2004, an issue was raised regarding the appropriate
flammability standards for passenger seats that incorporated non-
traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional
metal covered by fabric. The Seattle Aircraft Certification Office and
Transport Standards Staff reviewed this design and determined that it
represented the kind and quantity of

material that should be required to pass the heat release and smoke
emissions requirements. We have determined that special conditions
would be promulgated to apply the standards defined in 14 CFR 25.853(d)
to seats with large, non-metallic panels in their design.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus A350-
900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Airbus A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    So, by the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
following special conditions are issued as part of the type
certification basis for Airbus A350-900 series airplanes with passenger
seats that have non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels.
    1. Compliance with 14 CFR part 25 Appendix F, parts IV and V, heat
release and smoke emission, is required for seats that incorporate non-
traditional, large nonmetallic panels that may either be a single
component or multiple components in a concentrated area in their
design.
    2. The applicant may designate up to and including 1.5 square feet
of non-traditional, nonmetallic panel material per seat place that does
not have to comply with No. 1. A triple seat assembly may have a total
of 4.5 square feet excluded on any portion of the assembly (e.g.,
outboard seat place 1 sq. ft., middle 1 sq. ft., and inboard 2.5 sq.
ft.).
    3. Seats need not meet the test requirements of 14 CFR part 25
Appendix F, parts IV and V when installed in compartments that are not
otherwise required to meet these requirements. Examples include:
    a. Airplanes with passenger capacities of 19 or less,
    b. Airplanes exempted from smoke and heat release requirements.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 14, 2012.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7235 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68743-68746]
[DOCID:fr29de09-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1221; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing
new panel assemblies in the main equipment center and removing certain
relays from some panels in the main equipment center. This proposed AD
would also require revising the maintenance program to incorporate
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28. This
proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent possible sources of
ignition in a fuel tank caused by electrical fault or uncommanded dry
operation of the main tank boost pumps and center auxiliary tank
override and jettison pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank could
result in a fire or an explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 12,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1221;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent

modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design
reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if
their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As
explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt
airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to
address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    Boeing advised us that wiring deterioration or damage in the main
tank boost pumps or center auxiliary tank override and jettison pumps
can result in electrical faults. Internal electrical faults in the pump
or inside the pump wire bundle conduit could cause an ignition source
in the fuel tank from an overheat condition or electrical arcs. There
is also a safety concern that the center auxiliary tank override and
jettison pumps might continue to operate dry for an extended period due
to electrical faults or a single failure in the pump switch. The
extended dry operation of the pump could cause overheating, electrical
arcs, or frictional sparks in the fuel tank. An ignition source in the
fuel tank could result in a fire or an explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

Other Related Rulemaking

    On May 8, 2008, we issued AD 2008-11-01, amendment 39-15523 (73 FR
29414, May 21, 2008), for certain Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes. That AD requires revising the maintenance
program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel
tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. That AD also requires an initial inspection to phase in
certain repetitive AWL inspections, and repair if necessary. That AD
resulted from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We issued that
AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks
caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance
actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 into the maintenance
program in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-11-01 would
terminate the action required by paragraph (h) of this proposed AD.
    On July 24, 2009, we issued AD 2009-16-06, amendment 39-15989 (74
FR 38905, August 5, 2009), for all Model 767 airplanes. That AD
requires installing an automatic shutoff system for the auxiliary fuel
tank override/jettison fuel pumps (also referred to as center tank fuel
pumps in the airplane flight manual (AFM)), revising the AFM to advise
the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped
with an automatic auxiliary fuel tank pump shutoff control, and, for
certain airplanes, installing a placard to alert the flightcrew of
certain fuel usage restrictions. That AD provides optional terminating
actions for certain requirements. That AD results from a design review
of the fuel tank systems. We issued that AD to prevent an overheat
condition outside the center tank fuel pump explosion-resistance area
that is open to the pump inlet, which could cause an ignition source
for the fuel vapors in the fuel tank and result in fuel tank explosions
and consequent loss of the airplane. That AD requires installing the
automatic shutoff system in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
767-28A0083, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2009, for Model 767-200, -
300, and -300F series airplanes; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
28A0084, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2007, for Model 767-400ER series
airplanes. Those service bulletins would be required to be done prior
to or concurrently with the installation of the panel assemblies
proposed in this NPRM.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, dated
January 10, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 1,
dated June 25, 2009. Those service bulletins describe procedures for
installing new P140 and P141 panel assemblies (including all applicable
parts and components) in the main equipment center and removing certain
relays. Applicable parts and components include, but are not limited
to, support brackets and wiring supports. Removing certain relays
involves removing the fuel boost pump control relays from the P33, P36,
and P37 panels.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0085 specifies that installing
an automatic shutoff system for the auxiliary fuel tank pump specified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0083 should be done before or at the
same time as installing the new P140 and P141 panel assemblies.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 1, dated June 25,
2009, adds Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084 to the concurrent
requirements described above, includes information derived from a
service bulletin validation process, and corrects some part numbers and
work-hour estimates provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
28A0085, dated January 10, 2008.
    We have also reviewed Section 9 (``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS (AWLs)
AND CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS (CMRs)'') of the Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision March
2009 (hereafter referred to as ``the MPD''). Subsection E of the MPD
contains fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-27 that specifies, for certain
airplanes, repetitive operational testing of the main fuel tank boost
pumps and all ground fault indication (GFI) control relays for the
center auxiliary tank override/jettison fuel pump. Subsection E of the
MPD also contains fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-28, that specifies, for
certain airplanes, repetitive functional testing of the center
auxiliary fuel tank override/jettison fuel pump uncommanded-on system.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require the following actions:
     Installing new P140 and P141 panel assemblies and all
applicable parts and components in the main equipment center and
removing certain relays.
     Installing an automatic shutoff system for the center wing
tank override boost pumps before or concurrently with the installation
of the new P140 and P141 panel assemblies.
     Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWL No.
28-AWL-27

that specifies, for certain airplanes, repetitive operations testing of
the main fuel tank boost pumps and all GFI control relays for the
center auxiliary tank override/jettison fuel pump.
     Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWL No.
28-AWL-28, that specifies, for certain airplanes, repetitive functional
testing of the uncommanded-on system for the override/jettison fuel
pump of the center auxiliary fuel tank.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 416 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work-hour, for U.S. operators to comply
with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                   Work hours             Parts         Cost per product       Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installing P140 and P141 panel    Between 230 and     Between $35,573     Between $53,973     Between
 assemblies and removing certain   258.                and $38,211.        and $58,851.        $22,452,768 and
 relays.                                                                                $24,482,016.
Installing automatic shutoff      Between 3 and 29..  Between $421 and    Between $661 and    Between $274,976
 system (prior/concurrent                              $9,374.             $11,694.            and $4,864,704.
 action).
Revising maintenance program....  1.................  None..............  $80...............  $33,280.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-1221; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-097-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 1, dated
June 25, 2009.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible sources of
ignition in a fuel tank caused by electrical fault or uncommanded
dry operation of the main tank boost pumps and center auxiliary tank
override and jettison pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank
could result in a fire or an explosion, and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Installation of Panel Assemblies and Removal of Relays

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install new P140 and P141 panel assemblies and all applicable parts
and components in the main equipment center and removing the fuel
boost pump control relays from the P33, P36, and P37 panels, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, dated January 10, 2008; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2009.

Before/Concurrent Installation

    (g) For airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2009;
or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084, Revision 1, dated April 26,
2007: Before or concurrently with accomplishing

the action required by paragraph (f) of this AD, install an
automatic shutoff system for the auxiliary fuel tank pump in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information identified in Table 1 of this AD. Accomplishing
the requirements of AD 2009-16-06, amendment 39-15989, terminates
the requirements of this paragraph.

                                     Table 1--Concurrent Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Boeing Service Bulletin--              Revision--                         Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-28A0083..................................               1  April 26, 2007.
767[dash]28A0083.............................               2  February 12, 2009.
767-28A0084..................................               1  April 26, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintenance Program Revision

    (h) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (f) of this AD, revise the maintenance program by
incorporating airworthiness limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-27 and No.
28-AWL-28 of Section 9 (``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS (AWLs) AND
CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS (CMRs)'') of the Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision March
2009.

Terminating Action for AWLs Revision

    (i) Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 into the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-
11-01, amendment 39-15523, terminates the action required by
paragraph (h) of this AD.

No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    (j) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD, no alterative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

AMOCs

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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: Louis Natsiopoulos,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 16, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-30702 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53675]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0717]
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Boomsday
Festival; Tennessee River 646.0-649.0; Knoxville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone for the Boomsday
Festival Fireworks on the Tennessee River 646.0-649.0 from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This action is necessary to
safeguard participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels,
and persons on navigable waters, during the Boomsday Festival
Fireworks. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting or
anchoring in the Safety Zone is prohibited to all vessels not
registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels,
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio
Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call Petty Officer James Alter, Coast Guard Marine
Safety Detachment Nashville at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Boomsday Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801
Table 1, Table No. 36; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 39 on September 1, 2013
from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 36; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 39 is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a); 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In
addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information
Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or Patrol Commander
determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: August 2, 2013.
R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2013-21179 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P