[Federal Register: April 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 19725-19727]
[DOCID:fr17ap06-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316; FRL-8158-8]

Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency)
Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) announces a public meeting of the
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on EPA's
scientific and ethical reviews of human subjects research.

DATES: The public meeting will be held May 2-4, 2006 from 8:30 a.m. to
approximately 5 p.m., eastern time (However, the third day may not be
needed).
    Location: Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, Alexandria-Historic District,
625 First Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. The telephone number for the
Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, Alexandria-Historic District is (703) 548-
6300.
    Meeting Access: Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come
basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting,
including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired,
should contact the DFO at least 10 business days prior to the meeting
using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit
I.E. of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes
further information should contact Paul I. Lewis, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (202) 564-
2070; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov:
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316. Deliveries are only
accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0316. 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Meeting

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies
on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal
Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A

frequently updated electronic version of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) is available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the
meeting agenda will be available by mid to late April 2006. In
addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the
materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these
documents, and certain other related documents that might be available
electronically, from the regulations.gov Web site and the HSRB Internet
Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. For questions on document

availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare May Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

E. How May I Participate in This Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0316 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to April 26, 2006. To the extent that time permits,
interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the
Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each
individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is
strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon,
eastern time, April 26, 2006, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making
the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will
represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g.,
overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before
the HSRB are limited to 5 minutes per individual or organization.
Please note that this includes all individuals appearing either as part
of, or on behalf of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a
full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under
discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand
these time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up
separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available,
there may be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker
should being 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides
for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting.
    2. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at
any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should
submit your comments at least 5 business days prior to the beginning of
the meeting. If you submit comments after the date, those comments will
be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that the
Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments
prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written
comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no
later than noon, eastern time, April 26, 2006. You should submit your
comments using the instructions in Unit 1.C. of this notice. In
addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments
directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the
length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

F. Background

    The HSRB will meet to consider and review EPA's scientific and
ethics analyses of six completed human toxicity studies concerning
three different compounds, including: Hexavalent chromium, a
constituent of a wood preservative; and the following pesticide active
ingredients--carbofuran and methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). The studies
being considered at this meeting will include both studies on which the
Agency proposes to rely in actions under the pesticide laws and studies
that the Agency has decided not to use in its risk assessments, either
for scientific reasons or because they do not meet the standards in
EPA's final human studies rule, 40 CFR part 26. The Agency will ask the
HSRB to advise the Agency on a range of scientific and ethics issues
and on how the studies should be assessed against the provisions in 40
CFR 26.1701-26.1704 of EPA's final human studies rule. In addition, the
Board may be reviewing draft HSRB reports for subsequent Board
approval.

    Dated: April 11, 2006.
William H. Farland,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 06-3635 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6960-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7832-7834]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03642]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 5, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0993; Product Identifier 2018-NE-18-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG TAY
650-15 and TAY 651-54 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) TAY 650-15 and TAY 651-54
turbofan engines with low-pressure compressor (LPC) fan blade module
M01300AA or M01300AB, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of LPC fan blade retention lug fractures on engines with a high
number of dry-film lubrication (DFL) treatments. This proposed AD would
require determining the number of DFL treatments applied on each LPC
fan blade, and removing from service and replacing the affected LPC fan
blades if the DFL treatment limit is exceeded. We are proposing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For RRD service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-
Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone; +49 (0) 33-7086-1883; fax: +49 (0)
33-086-3276. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7759.

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-2018-
0993; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7134; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0993;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-18-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2018-0079, dated April 11, 2018 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The MCAI states:

    Fractures of LPC fan blade retention lugs were reported on
engines that had been subjected to a high number of Dry Film
Lubrication (DFL) treatments. Subsequent investigation determined
that this had exposed the retention lugs of the affected LPC (fan)
blades to excessively high stress cycles.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of LPC fan blade retention lug(s), high vibration, reduced
thrust or in-flight shut down, possibly resulting in reduced control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RRD issued original
issue of Alert NMSB TAY-72-A1833 to provide identification and
replacement instructions and EASA issued AD 2017-0217 to require
determination of the number of DFL treatments applied to the LPC fan
blades and, based on that determination, fan blade(s) replacement.
That AD also introduced the maximum allowable number of DFL
treatments applicable to the LPC fan blades.
    Since that AD was issued, RRD issued the NMSB to update the
calculation methodology which was provided to determine the number
of DFL treatments, in case that number could not be identified from
the engine maintenance records. The new calculation methodology,
compared with the methodology provided in the original issue of the
RRD Alert NMSB TAY-72-A1833 can lead, in some cases of LPC fan
blades with TAY 651-54 operation history, to earlier replacement of
blades.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2017-0217, which is superseded, but refers
to an updated alternative method to determine the number of DFL
treatments.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0993.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TAY-
72-A1833, Revision 1, dated

January 8, 2018. The Alert NMSB describes procedures for determining
the number of DFL treatments on each LPC fan blade by reviewing the
engine maintenance records or using an alternative method of counting,
and replacing the LPC fan blade with a part eligible for installation
if the DFL treatment limit is exceeded. 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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require reviewing engine maintenance records
or using an alternative method of counting and replacing the LPC fan
blade with a part eligible for installation if the DFL treatment limit
is exceeded.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect LPC fan blades................  11 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $935         $71,060
                                         hour = $935.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of
a single LPC fan blade that would be required based on the results of
the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need replacement of the LPC fan blades.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace LPC fan blade......................  16 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $10,750         $12,110
                                              $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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),
    (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.

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

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):

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2018-0993;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-18-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 19, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) TAY
650-15 and TAY 651-54 turbofan engines with low-pressure compressor
(LPC) fan blade module M01300AA or M01300AB, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of LPC fan blade retention lug
fractures on engines with a high number of dry-film lubrication
(DFL) treatments. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
LPC fan blade retention lug. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in loss of engine thrust control and reduced control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
determine whether the engine is a Group 1 or Group 2 engine as
follows:
    (i) A Group 1 engine is an affected RRD TAY 650-15 or TAY 651-54
turbofan engine with a LPC fan blade, part number (P/N) JR31911, P/N
JR33865, or P/N JR33866, and with a serial number (S/N) listed in
Appendix 1 of RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
TAY-72-A1833, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2018.
    (ii) A Group 2 engine is any other RRD TAY 650-15 or TAY 651-54
turbofan engine with LPC fan blade module M01300AA or M01300AB,
installed.
    (2) For Group 1 and 2 engines: Within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, determine the number of DFL treatments on
each affected LPC fan blade by reviewing the maintenance records or
using the alternative method specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.D. or 3.Q., of RRD Alert NMSB TAY-72-
A1833, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2018.
    (3) Depending on the results of the maintenance record review or
the alternative method specified above, do the following, as
applicable:
    (i) For Group 1 and 2 engines: If the number of LPC fan blades
with DFL treatments is fewer than 13, mark the LPC fan blade
dovetail root with a suffix code during the next scheduled LPC fan
blade removal using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.J.
or 3.U., of RRD Alert NMSB TAY-72-A1833, Revision 1, dated January
8, 2018.
    (ii) For Group 1 engines: If LPC fan blades with 13 to 20 DFL
treatments are installed on more than one engine on the same
airplane, within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, use one of the three options in the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.F., of RRD Alert NMSB TAY-72-A1833, Revision 1, dated
January 8, 2018, to ensure that no LPC fan blade with 13 to 20 DFL
treatments is installed on more than one engine on the same
airplane.
    (iii) For Group 1 and 2 engines: If it is determined that the
number of DFL treatments is equal to or more than the value defined
in Table 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD, remove the LPC fan blade
from service and replace with a part eligible for installation
within the compliance times specified in Table 1 of paragraph (g) of
this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR19.001

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected
LPC fan blade or LPC module M01300AA or M01300AB, onto any engine or
install any engine with an affected LPC fan blade or LPC module
M01300AA or M01300AB, onto any airplane unless it has been first
determined that the LPC fan blades have had less than 13 DFL
treatments, and have been marked in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.J. or 3.U, of RRD Alert
NMSB TAY-72-A1833, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2018.

(i) Definitions

    (1) A part eligible for installation is a LPC fan blade that has
had 12 or fewer DFL treatments and is marked on the LPC fan blade
dovetail root with a suffix code depicting the number of DFL
treatments.
    (2) An affected fan blade is an LPC fan blade, P/N JR31911, P/N
JR33865, or P/N JR33866, and with an S/N listed in Appendix 1 of RRD
Alert NMSB TAY-72-A1833, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2018.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), AD
2018-0079, dated April 11, 2018, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2018-0993.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33-7086-1883; fax: +49
(0) 33-7086-3276. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 21, 2019.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-03642 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8729-8730]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13803-000]

Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 29, 2010, the Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Bison Peak Pumped Storage Project (Bison Peak Project or project) to be
located in the Tehachapi Mountains south of Tehachapi, Kern County,
California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The applicant has proposed two alternatives for the placement of a
lower reservoir, termed ``South'' and ``Tejon.'' The South alternative
proposal would consist of the following: (1) An upper dam with a height
of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet, and with a reservoir having a
total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet at a normal maximum operating
elevation of 7,860 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) a lower dam with a
height of 310 feet, a crest length of 1,160 feet, and with a reservoir
having a total storage capacity of 5,805 acre-feet at a normal maximum
operating elevation of 5,100 feet msl; (3) a 9,060-foot-long
underground conduit; (4) a powerhouse containing four 250 megawatt (MW)
reversible pump turbines and located 900 feet below ground level,
approximately midway between the upper and lower reservoirs; (5) a
powerhouse access tunnel of approximately 2,090 feet; and a (6) 3.2- or
5.3-mile-long, 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to either the
existing Cottonwind or Windhub substations, respectively.
    The Tejon alternative proposal would consist of the following: (1)
An upper dam with a height of 50 feet, a crest length of 7,128 feet,
and with a reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet
at a normal maximum operating elevation of 7,860 feet msl; (2) a lower
dam with a height of 260 feet, a crest length of 1,480 feet, and with a
reservoir having a total storage capacity of 6,355 acre-feet at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 5,250 feet msl; (3) a 10,350-
foot-long underground conduit; (4) a powerhouse containing four 250 MW
reversible pump turbines and located 900 feet below ground level,
approximately midway between the upper and lower reservoirs; and a (5)
14.2- or 14.8-mile-long transmission line (including both new
construction of a 345-kV line and upgrades to existing transmission
lines) to either the existing Cottonwind or Windhub substations,
respectively. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project would be 3,066 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC., 9795 Cabrini
Dr., Ste. 206, Burbank, CA 91504; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13803-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3307 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 67206-67209]
[DOCID:fr04no05-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 35-28051]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as
Amended (``Act'')

October 28, 2005.
    Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been
made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules
promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the
application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the
proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or
declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public
inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
    Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the
application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in
writing by November 22, 2005, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303, and serve a
copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the
address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the
case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the
request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the
issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will
be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any
notice or order issued in the matter. After November 22, 2005, the
application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be
granted and/or permitted to become effective.

FirstEnergy Corp., et al. (70-10322)

    FirstEnergy Corp., (``FirstEnergy''), a registered holding company;
and certain of its public utility subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Company, an
Ohio corporation (``Ohio Edison''); The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, an Ohio corporation (``Cleveland Electric''); The Toledo
Edison Company, an Ohio corporation (``Toledo Edison''); and
Pennsylvania Power Company, a Pennsylvania corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Ohio Edison, (``Penn Power''; Ohio Edison, Cleveland
Electric, Toledo Edison and Penn Power collectively referred to as
``Utility Subsidiaries''); and FirstEnergy Nuclear Generating Corp.
(``FE Nuclear''), a newly-incorporated Ohio corporation that would
become a public utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy, all of 76 South Main
Street, Akron, Ohio 44308, have filed an application-declaration, as
amended (``Application'') under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12(b),
12(c), 12(d), and 12(f) of the Act and rules 43, 44, 45, 46 and 54
under the Act. FirstEnergy, the Utility Subsidiaries and FE Nuclear are
referred to as ``Applicants.''
    FirstEnergy directly owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison, and indirectly through
Ohio Edison owns all of the outstanding common stock of Penn Power.\1\
Ohio Edison was organized under the laws of the State of Ohio in 1930
and owns property and does business as an electric public utility in
that state. Ohio Edison also has ownership interests in certain
generating facilities located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ohio
Edison engages in the generation, distribution and sale of electric
energy to communities in a 7,500 square mile area of central and
northeastern Ohio having a population of approximately 2.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FirstEnergy's other public utility subsidiaries are Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company,
Metropolitan Edison Company, York Haven Power Company, The Waverly
Electric Power & Light Company and American Transmission Systems,
Incorporated. These companies are not applicants in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio Edison owns all of Penn Power's outstanding common stock. Penn
Power was organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
in 1930 and owns property and does business as an electric public
utility in that state. Penn Power engages in the generation,
distribution and sale of electric energy in a 1,500 square mile-area of
western Pennsylvania having a population of approximately 300,000. Penn
Power is also authorized to do business and owns property in the State
of Ohio.
    Cleveland Electric was organized under the laws of the State of
Ohio in 1892 and does business as an electric public utility in that
state. Cleveland Electric engages in the generation, distribution and
sale of electric energy in an area of approximately 1,700 square miles
in northeastern Ohio having a

population of approximately 1.9 million. It also has ownership
interests in certain generating facilities located in Pennsylvania.
    Toledo Edison was organized under the laws of the State of Ohio in
1901 and does business as an electric public utility in that state.
Toledo Edison engages in the generation, distribution and sale of
electric energy in an area of approximately 2,500 square miles in
northwestern Ohio having a population of approximately 800,000. It also
has interests in certain generating facilities located in Pennsylvania.

Requested Authorization

    The Utility Subsidiaries are requesting authorization to transfer
ownership of their respective interests in certain nuclear generating
plants and related assets and liabilities to FE Nuclear. These asset
transfers are in furtherance of FirstEnergy's Ohio and Pennsylvania
corporate separation plans, which were described in FirstEnergy's
application/declaration for authorization to merge with GPU, Inc.
(``GPU'').\2\ In addition, FirstEnergy and FE Nuclear are requesting
authorization to engage in financing and other related transactions for
the period through February 8, 2006 (the ``Authorization Period'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See HCAR No. 27459 (October 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of Nuclear Generating Plants to FE Nuclear

    The Utility Subsidiaries own, as tenants in common, interests in
the following nuclear generating plants:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Plant                 Location        MW       Ownership %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Valley 1.............  Shippingport,         821  Ohio Edison
                               PA.                        35%; Penn
                                                          Power 65%.
Beaver Valley 2.............  Shippingport,         831  Ohio Edison
                               PA.                        20.22%; Penn
                                                          Power 13.74%;
                                                          Cleveland
                                                          Electric
                                                          24.47%; Toledo
                                                          Edison 1.65%.
Davis-Besse.................  Oak Harbor, OH.       883  Cleveland
                                                          Electric
                                                          51.38%; Toledo
                                                          Edison 48.62%.
Perry.......................  North Perry         1,260  OES Nuclear
                               Village, OH.               17.42%; Penn
                                                          Power 5.245%;
                                                          Toledo Edison
                                                          19.91%;
                                                          Cleveland
                                                          Electric
                                                          44.85%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Utility Subsidiaries propose to sell or otherwise transfer
their respective ownership interests in the nuclear plants to FE
Nuclear by means of the following transactions, all of which would be
carried out concurrently: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Utility Subsidiaries do not propose to transfer to FE
Nuclear their remaining percentage ownership interests in certain of
the nuclear facilities that are currently subject to sale and
leaseback arrangements with third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transfer of Nuclear Plants by Penn Power. Pursuant to the terms of
a Subscription and Capital Contribution Agreement (``Penn Power
Contribution Agreement''), Penn Power would acquire 100 shares of
common stock of FE Nuclear in consideration for Penn Power's
contribution to FE Nuclear of its undivided interests in the two Beaver
Valley units and Beaver Valley common facilities and its undivided
interest in Perry Unit 1, together with associated decommissioning
funds. In connection with such contribution, FE Nuclear would assume
Penn Power's obligations in respect of $64 million aggregate principal
amount of pollution control revenue bonds (``PCRBs'') and certain other
liabilities associated with the transferred units. The parties to the
Penn Power Contribution Agreement have agreed that the value of the
contributed assets would be the net book value thereof as of the end of
the fiscal quarter immediately preceding the closing. Simultaneously,
Penn Power would receive from FE Nuclear a promissory note (``FE
Nuclear Note'') in respect of the book value of certain related assets,
including construction work in progress, nuclear fuel, inventories and
spare parts and accounts receivable, determined as of the end of the
quarter immediately preceding the closing. The FE Nuclear Note would
bear interest at a rate equal to Penn Power's weighted average cost of
long-term debt, would mature 20 years after its date of issuance, and
would be prepayable at any time, in whole or in part, by FE Nuclear.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Following the contribution to FE Nuclear, Penn Power would
distribute the stock of FE Nuclear as a dividend to its parent, Ohio
Edison, such that FE Nuclear would become, momentarily, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohio Edison. If the transactions
described in the previous paragraph had occurred on March 31, 2005,
Applicants state that Penn Power's cost basis for the stock of FE
Nuclear would have been equal to the net book value of the
transferred interests in the Beaver Valley and Perry units and
associated assets (approximately $542 million), less the PCRB
obligations ($64 million) and agreed upon value of other liabilities
assumed by FE Nuclear (approximately $401 million), and the
distribution of the stock of FE Nuclear to Ohio Edison would have
resulted in a charge to Penn Power's retained earnings of $77
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transfer of Nuclear Plants by Ohio Edison. Pursuant to the terms of
a Capital Contribution Agreement (``Ohio Edison Contribution
Agreement''), Ohio Edison would contribute its undivided interests in
the two Beaver Valley units and Beaver Valley common facilities and the
common stock of OES Nuclear Incorporated (``OES Nuclear''), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Ohio Edison, which holds an undivided interest in
Perry Unit 1, together with associated decommissioning funds and its
interests in other assets, inventories, fuel, spare parts, equipment,
supplies and contract rights relating to the transferred units, to FE
Nuclear as an additional capital contribution to FE Nuclear. In
connection with such transfer, FE Nuclear would assume Ohio Edison's
obligations in respect of $116 million aggregate principal amount of
PCRB obligations and certain other liabilities associated with the
transferred units. An additional $295 million of Ohio Edison's PCRBs
are expected to be assumed by FE Nuclear after the distribution
described in the next paragraph. The parties to the Ohio Edison
Contribution Agreement have agreed that the value of the contributed
assets would be the net book value thereof as of the end of the fiscal
quarter immediately preceding the closing.
    Following the transfer of Ohio Edison's nuclear assets to FE
Nuclear, Applicants state that it is anticipated that OES Nuclear would
be merged with and into FE Nuclear, and Ohio Edison would distribute
the stock of FE Nuclear as a dividend to its parent, FirstEnergy, such
that FE Nuclear would become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
FirstEnergy.
    If the transactions described above had occurred on March 31, 2005,
Applicants represent that Ohio Edison's cost basis for the stock of FE
Nuclear would have been equal to the net book value of the transferred
interests in the Beaver Valley and Perry units and associated assets
(approximately $712 million), less the initial PCRB obligations to be
assumed ($116 million)

and the agreed upon value of other liabilities assumed by FE Nuclear
(approximately $596 million), resulting in no charge to Ohio Edison's
retained earnings.
    Sale of Nuclear Plants by Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison.
Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison have each entered into a Nuclear
Purchase and Sale Agreement with FE Nuclear (``Nuclear PSA''), under
which FE Nuclear has agreed to purchase Cleveland Electric's and Toledo
Edison's respective undivided ownership interests in Beaver Valley Unit
2, Perry Unit 1 and Davis-Besse for a purchase price equal to the net
book value thereof, determined as of the end of the fiscal quarter
immediately preceding the closing, together with the respective
interests of Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison in nuclear
decommissioning trust funds associated with those plants and their
respective right, title and interest in and to all contracts, fuel,
spare parts, inventories, equipment, supplies and other assets
associated with each transferred unit, less the amount of obligations
of Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison under PCRBs associated with the
transferred units ($367 million and $284 million, respectively, at
March 31, 2005), and the agreed upon value of certain other liabilities
associated with the transferred units.
    At closing, FE Nuclear would pay the purchase price, determined as
described in the previous paragraph, by delivering to Cleveland
Electric and Toledo Edison FE Nuclear Notes secured by a lien on the
transferred assets. Each FE Nuclear Note would bear interest at a rate
per annum based on the average weighted cost of long-term debt of
Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison, as the case may be, would mature
20 years after the date of issuance, and would be prepayable at any
time, in whole or in part, at the option of FE Nuclear, without
penalty.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the transactions described above had been consummated at
March 31, 2005, Applicants state that the principal amounts of the
FE Nuclear Notes delivered to Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison
would have been approximately $469 million and $307 million,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Repurchases of Common Stock of Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison
and Penn Power. FirstEnergy states that, in connection with the
transfer of the nuclear plants to FE Nuclear, FirstEnergy would make a
cash capital contribution to FE Nuclear of up to $700 million. FE
Nuclear would use the proceeds of this investment at or subsequent to
closing to prepay a like amount of the FE Nuclear Notes delivered at
closing to Penn Power, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison. In turn,
Penn Power, Cleveland Electric and Toledo Edison would apply the
proceeds of such prepayment of the FE Nuclear Notes to repay
outstanding borrowings under the FirstEnergy system utility money pool.
To the extent that there are any remaining prepayment proceeds, the
Applicants request authorization for Cleveland Electric and Toledo
Edison to repurchase shares of their common stock that are held by
FirstEnergy and Penn Power requests authorization to repurchase shares
of its common stock that are held by Ohio Edison. Applicants state that
the purpose of these transactions is to adjust (i.e., reduce) the
equity and debt capitalization of Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison and
Penn Power to mirror their smaller asset base after the transfer of
their undivided interests in the nuclear plants to FE Nuclear.

Financing by FE Nuclear

    External Debt Financing by FE Nuclear. FE Nuclear is requesting
authorization to issue and sell to unaffiliated lenders, from time to
time during the period through the Authorization Period, long-term debt
securities having maturities of up to 50 years (``Long-term Debt'') and
short-term debt securities having maturities of less than one year
(``Short-term Debt'') in an aggregate amount at any time outstanding
not to exceed $1.5 billion (the ``FE Nuclear Debt Limit''). The
following general terms would be applicable where appropriate to Long-
term Debt and Short-term Debt of FE Nuclear:
    (a) Effective Cost of Money. The effective cost of capital (i.e.,
the aggregate of all payments, including interest, dividend
distributions and other periodic payments) in respect of Long-term Debt
and Short-term Debt of FE Nuclear would not exceed competitive market
rates available at the time of issuance for securities having the same
or reasonably similar terms and conditions issued by similar companies
of reasonably comparable credit quality; provided that, in no event
would the effective cost of capital (i) on Long-term Debt exceed at the
time of issuance 500 basis points over the yield to maturity of
comparable-term U.S. Treasury securities if the interest rate on such
Long-term Debt securities is a fixed rate or, if the rate on such Long-
term Debt securities is a floating rate, 500 basis points over the
London Interbank Offered Rate (``LIBOR'') for maturities of less than
one year; and (ii) on Short-term Debt exceed at the time of issuance,
(A) in the case of commercial paper or any other short-term borrowing
that is not tied to a reference rate, 300 basis points over LIBOR, and
(B) in the case of any short-term borrowing that is tied to a reference
rate, either (1) 300 basis points over LIBOR, (2) 50 basis points over
the prime rate, as announced from time to time by CitiBank, or any
successor thereto, or (3) 100 basis points over the Federal Funds Rate,
whichever reference rate is applicable.
    (b) Issuance Expenses. The underwriting fees, commissions or other
similar remuneration paid in connection with the non-competitive issue,
sale or distribution of any security (not including any original issue
discount) would not exceed 5% of the principal or total amount of the
security being issued.
    (c) Use of Proceeds. The proceeds from the sale of securities in
external financing transactions would be used for general corporate
purposes, including financing, in part, of the capital expenditures of
FE Nuclear, financing of working capital requirements of FE Nuclear,
the acquisition, retirement or redemption of securities (including PCRB
obligations) previously issued by or on behalf FE Nuclear, and other
lawful purposes.
    (d) Common Equity Ratio. FE Nuclear and each of the Utility
Subsidiaries commits that it would maintain common equity as a
percentage of consolidated capitalization (common stock equity, long-
term debt and short-term debt, including current maturities of long-
term debt) at 30% or higher.
    (e) Ratings Event. With respect to the securities issuance for
which authorization is requested: (a) Within four business days after
the occurrence of a Ratings Event,\6\ Applicants would notify the
Commission of its occurrence (by means of a letter, via fax, e-mail or
overnight mail to the Office of Public Utility Regulation), and (b)
within 30 days after the occurrence of a Ratings Event, Applicants
would submit a post-effective amendment to this Application explaining
the material facts and circumstances relating to that Ratings Event
(including the basis on which, taking into account the interests of

investors, consumers and the public as well as other applicable
criteria under the Act, it remains appropriate for FE Nuclear to issue
the securities for which authorization has been requested, so long as
FE Nuclear continues to comply with the other applicable terms and
conditions specified in the Commission's order authorizing the
transactions requested in this Application). Furthermore, except in
accordance with a further order of the Commission, no such securities
would be issued following the 60th day after a Ratings Event (other
than Short-term Debt) if the downgraded rating(s) has or have not been
upgraded to investment grade. Applicants request that the Commission
reserve jurisdiction, through the remainder of the Authorization
Period, over the issuance of any securities (other than Short-term
Debt) that FE Nuclear is prohibited from issuing as a result of the
occurrence of a Ratings Event if no revised rating reflecting an
investment grade rating has been issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Ratings Event'' will be deemed to have occurred if,
during the Authorization Period, (i) any security issued by FE
Nuclear or FirstEnergy upon original issuance, if rated, is rated
below investment grade, or (ii) any outstanding security of
FirstEnergy or FE Nuclear that is rated is downgraded below
investment grade. For purposes of this provision, a security will be
deemed ``investment grade'' if it is rated investment grade by at
least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization, as
that term is used in paragraphs (c)(2)(vi)(E), (F) and (H) of rule
15c3-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Specific Types of External Debt Securities of FE Nuclear

    Long-term Debt. Each series of Long-term Debt would have such
designation, aggregate principal amount, maturity, interest rate(s) or
methods of determining the same, terms of payment of interest,
redemption provisions, sinking fund terms and other terms and
conditions as FE Nuclear may determine at the time of issuance. Any
Long-term Debt (a) may be secured or unsecured, (b) may be senior or
subordinated, (c) would have maturities ranging from one to 50 years,
(d) may be subject to optional and/or mandatory redemption, in whole or
in part, at par or at various premiums above the principal amount
thereof, (e) may be entitled to mandatory or optional sinking fund
provisions, (f) may provide for reset of the coupon pursuant to a
remarketing arrangement, (g) may be subject to tender or the obligation
of the issuer to repurchase at the election of the holder or upon the
occurrence of a specified event, (h) may be called from existing
investors by a third party, and (i) may be entitled to the benefit of
affirmative or negative financial or other covenants.
    Long-term Debt may also be in the form of agreements between FE
Nuclear and one or more industrial development authorities (``IDAs'')
pursuant to which an IDA agrees to issue PCRBs for the purpose of
financing or refinancing pollution control revenue facilities relating
to FE Nuclear's nuclear power plants. Under the terms of any such
agreement, payments to the issuing IDA would be designed to match
payments of principal of and interest on the PCRBs to which such
agreement relates.
    As security for FE Nuclear's obligations under any agreement
relating to any series of PCRBs, FE Nuclear requests authority to (1)
issue its promissory note or notes to evidence the loan to FE Nuclear
of the proceeds of the PCRBs by the issuing IDA, (2) acquire and
deliver a letter of credit (``LOC'') guaranteeing payment of the PCRBs
and enter into reimbursement agreements with respect to any such LOC,
(3) acquire insurance policies guaranteeing payment of the PCRBs, and/
or (4) pledge its first mortgage bonds as collateral for its
obligations to the issuing IDA, any trustee, LOC bank or PCRB insurer.
To avoid double counting, FE Nuclear proposes that the amount of any
note or notes issued by FE Nuclear to evidence the loan to FE Nuclear
of the proceeds of any PCRBs or first mortgage bonds issued by FE
Nuclear as collateral security for PCRB obligations not count against
the FE Nuclear Debt Limit.
    Short-term Debt. Short-term Debt of FE Nuclear may be in the form
of commercial paper, promissory notes and/or other forms of unsecured
short-term indebtedness. FE Nuclear may establish from time to time new
committed bank lines of credit, provided that only the principal amount
of any outstanding borrowings would be counted against the proposed FE
Nuclear Debt Limit. Credit lines may be set up for use by FE Nuclear
for general corporate purposes in addition to credit lines to support
commercial paper as described in this subsection. FE Nuclear would
borrow and repay under such lines of credit, from time to time, as it
is deemed appropriate or necessary. FE Nuclear may also engage in other
types of short-term financing, including borrowings under uncommitted
lines, generally available to borrowers with comparable credit ratings
as it may deem appropriate in light of its needs and market conditions
at the time of issuance.
    Commercial paper would be sold in established domestic or European
commercial paper markets from time to time. Such commercial paper would
be sold to dealers at the discount rate or the coupon rate per annum
prevailing at the date of issuance for commercial paper of comparable
quality and maturities sold to commercial paper dealers generally. It
is expected that the dealers acquiring commercial paper from FE Nuclear
would reoffer such paper at a discount to corporate, institutional and,
with respect to European commercial paper, individual investors.
Institutional investors are expected to include commercial banks,
insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, foundations,
colleges and universities and finance companies.
    Intrasystem Financing Transactions. FE Nuclear further requests
authorization to make direct long-term and short-term borrowings from
FirstEnergy (``Direct Borrowings''). All such Direct Borrowings would
be evidenced by FE Nuclear's promissory notes and would be prepayable
at any time without premium or penalty at FE Nuclear's option. The
aggregate principal amount of Direct Borrowings by FE Nuclear at any
time outstanding would be counted against and would in no event exceed
the FE Nuclear Debt Limit. The interest rate and maturity of any Direct
Borrowings would be designed to parallel the terms (i.e, effective cost
of funds and maturity) of similar debt securities issued by
FirstEnergy, as authorized by the Commission by order dated June 30,
2003 (HCAR No. 27694) (the ``2003 Financing Order'').
    In addition, FE Nuclear requests authorization to become a
participant in and to make borrowings under the FirstEnergy system
nonutility money pool agreement (``Nonutility Money Pool'') subject to
terms and conditions previously approved by the Commission in the 2003
Financing Order.\7\ FE Nuclear requests authorization to borrow up to
$1 billion at any time outstanding under the Nonutility Money Pool.
Borrowings by FE Nuclear under the Nonutility Money Pool would also be
counted against the proposed FE Nuclear Debt Limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the 2003 Financing Order, FirstEnergy is authorized to
maintain and make loans to its nonutility subsidiaries through the
Nonutility Money Pool.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6105 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Benefits of Disulfoton on Selected Vegetable Crops and Cotton FROM: Colwell Cook, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division THROUGH: David Brassard, Senior Scientist Jonathan Becker, Team Leader Arnet Jones, Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division REVIEWED BY PRP: September 26, 2001 TO: Christina Scheltema Betty Schakleford Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

CC: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division SUMMARY All applications of disulfoton on the crops in this assessment are made by groundboom. Cole crops, lettuce, chili peppe rs use the liquid formulation, w hich is either shan k injected o r in furrow at pla nt. Disulfoton, b oth granular and liquid, is currently applied in furrow at plant on cotton and beans, snap and lima. BEAD believes that the cotton an d bean gr owers would switch to gra nular if the liquid fo rmulation wa s no longer a vailable.

Background Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD) has asked BEAD to evaluate the benefits of disulfoton for lima beans, snap beans, cole crops, lettuce, chili peppers, and cotton. The Health Effects Division (HED) has calculated the margins of exposure (MOE) to be of concern for mixer/ loaders and handlers. For the EC formulation of disulfoton, the MOEs were calculated to be 20 and 30, for mixer/ loader and handler, respectively. For the granular form ulation, HE D has calc ulated M OEs of 8 00 and 9 6 for mixer/ lo ader and handler, resp ectively. Additionally, aerial applications have much lower MOEs than do groundboom applications for mixer/ loader and handler. Postapplication risks were calculated for those sites that allowed foliar application. In this assessment, that includes only cotton, which had an MOE of 108 one day after treatment. Therefore, post application activities have not been inc luded in this asse ssment. 2 SRRD has requested that BEAD investigate the importance of liquid and granular formulations, and aerial applications of disulfoton.

Cole Crops and Chili Pepp ers Cole crops assessed include broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts. Chili pepper production is similar to the co le crops an d the pest pr oblems ar e the same, so it is included in this sec tion. The m ajority of cole crops produc tion occurs in California. New M exico produces most chili peppers in the United States. Most disulfoton applied to these crops is in California. Use of disulfoton has been decreasing, probably due to the recent registration of im idacloprid .

Disulfoton is u sed to con trol several sp ecies of aph ids on cole crops and chili peppe rs; it is especially efficacious against the cabbage aphid. It is shank injected when the plants are 4 5 weeks old and the aphids have exceeded the economic threshold. The formulation of disulfoton used is based upon the fertilizers, fungicides or herbicide s that will be shank injected at the same time, usu ally the liquid form ulation.

Currently, imid acloprid is a pplied at p lant, but imidac loprid alo ne cannot control the ca bbage aphid throughout the entire growing season due to its limited period of residual effectiveness. Imidacloprid is not effective as a foliar app lication. The refore, orga nophosp hates are still nece ssary to insure ap hid free head s or florets. Alternatives to disulfoton are oxydemeton methyl and dimethoate. Chlorpyrifos is also registered, but it is injurious to beneficial ins ects and has some phyto toxicity prob lems at the high ra tes required to control the cabbage aphid.

Lettuce Most of the United States iceberg lettuce (96%) and leaf lettuce (97%) is produced in California and Arizona. California treated about 2 3% of the iceberg and 1% of the leaf lettuce acreage with disulfoton in 1999 (Kurtz, pe rsonal com munication; CA Pestic ide Use R eport data , 1999).

The primary pest targeted by disulfoton on lettuce is the root aphid . Disulfoton is applied at plant or as a pre plant application and incorporated into the soil. It is only applied in the liquid formulation since the site was removed from the granular label in the late 1990s. It is not shank injected because this would put the active ingredient below the shallow root system of the lettuce plants (Kurtz, personal communication).

The recent decline in d isulfoton use o n lettuce may ha ve occurred due to the registration o f imidaclop rid and a strong program to remove Lombardy Poplar trees from residential and park areas. The poplar trees are a primary host for the root aphid. The reduction of these ornamentals near lettuce production has reduced the root aphid populations enough for imidacloprid to control most problems. However, there are still a few hot spots  of root aphids and these are the areas that still require disulfoton applications. There are no other effective alternatives to this particular aphid.

Beans, Lima and Snap Fresh lima beans are primarily produced in Georgia. Disulfoton is applied at plant to control thrips. Based on a survey o f county extensio n agents, Dr . Adams re ported tha t anywhere fro m 20 30% of lima b ean growers in Georgia use disulfoton , both liquid a nd granular formulations .

The only alternative for thrips for lima beans would be foliar applications of acephate. Imidacloprid is not registered for this vegetable, and the expense would prohibit its use if it should get registered (Adams, personal communication).

The crop profiles for snap bean production in Michigan does not recommend disulfoton. Although, other 3 Michigan publications recommend the granular formulation at plant (Rosenbaum, personal communication). The New York crop profile recommends only in furrow application at plant for potato leafhoppers. However, extension entomologists at Cornell do not recommend disulfoton as part of an IPM strategy. The potato leafhop per is a sporadic pest and d oes not req uire contro l every year. T hey advise gr owers to wa it until they have a p roblem with the insects befo re treating, and then applying acephate, carbaryl, me thomyl or dimethoate. D isulfoton is still recommended at plant if neighbo ring fields have identified pro blems with potato leafho pper. Ad ditionally, processo rs will disqualify any b eans treated with systemic insec ticides at plant un less the abov e condition is substantiated by extension agents (Pe tzoldt, perso nal communication).

Disulfoton is applied to beans as either a liquid or granular formulation. The formulation decision appears to be based upon whether the grower is applying fertilizer or herbicide at the same time. Although there is limited information to accurately a ssess impact of eliminating the liq uid formulation, BEA D believe s that doing so would not be a pr oblem to the majority o f growers. H owever, the re is a need fo r disulfoton in lim a bean, and occassion ally in snap bea n, produc tion.

Cotton Disulfoton is the insecticide of c hoice in area s that use clom azone to c ontrol the we eds: velvetlea f, primrose, and mo rning glory. Clomazone is the herb icide of choice in these areas bec ause it is very effective against these weeds and is less cos tly than the other h erbicides. D isulfoton wor ks as a safener w hen clomazone is used . Disulfoton is a pplied in furro w with the seed , while clomaz one is app lied as a ban d on top. T he liquid form ulation is preferred as it appears to be a better safener and more effective than the granular formulation at protecting the cotton seedlings against thrips. However, the alternative, phorate, is applied as a granular formulation although it is not as efficacious against the thrips. Another alternative, aldicarb, is very effective against thrips but do es not act as a safener. (Lentz and Leona rd, personal comm unications)

Use of disu lfoton in cotto n has been declining. T his has been attributed to the introduction of glyphosate tolerant (round up ready®) cotton. However, the percentage of acreage that can be planted with glyphosate tolerant cotton is restricted. Therefore, in areas without the modified cotton, herbicides that are efficacious against the aforementioned weeds are still necessary and subsequently so is disulfoton (Adams and Leonard, personal communications). The cotton growers would probably switch to the granular formulation if the liquid formulation was no longer available.

Maximum Acres Treated Cole Crops and Chili Pepp ers According to Mr. B reschini, a custo m applica tor, his comp any applies d isulfoton on up to 40 acre s/ day, maximum, usually less. He said that it is shank injected with fertilizer, when the plants are about 4 to 5 weeks old, and the co nsultants have b een identifying a phid pro blems. Ad ditionally, if the area is having an ap hid outbre ak, his company may apply disulfoton for u p to 4 wee ks, but has nev er applied it more than 3 times in one we ek, and usua lly only twice a week. Also, as a commercial applicator, the company has several mixer/ loaders and applicators, so Mr. Breschini said it is highly impro bable that the same peo ple would be making all the disulfoton application s.

Lettuce Lettuce in California is usually planted in blocks of 8 12 acres. Planting is staggered so that growers can harvest throughout the growing season. Disulfoton is applied in liquid formulation with herbicide at planting. The maximum acreage that could be treated in one day is 40, although 20 acres a day is probably more likely. With a commercial applicator, there may be 2 to 3 days of planting in a row, however, it would be unlikely that the same 4 application team would be making all of the applications. A private grower would be only able to plant 2 blocks or about 40 acres in a day. It is unlikely the private grower would plant more at one block at a time, otherwise, the staggering plan would not be in effect (Kurtz, Platts, personal communications).

Cotton Southern c otton farms te nd to be ab out 1,000 Acres +/ 10 %. Gro wers usually ow n 2 or 3 p lanters. Generally a planter can plant 100 150 A/ d ay. Under most circum stances a gro wer will have his fa rm planted within 3 days; however, the process can take up to 7 10 interrupted days if problems arise (weather, usually) (Leonard, personal communication)

References Agricultural Statistics 2000. NASS, USDA Agricultural Statistics 2001. NASS, USDA California P esticide Use Reports d ata, 1999 .

Crop Profile for Peppers (Chile) in New Mexico. March 2000. USDA Crop Profile for Broccoli in California. August 1999. USDA Crop Profile for Brussels Sprouts in California. November 1999. USDA Crop Profile for Cabbage in California. 2000. USDA Crop Profile for Cauliflower in California. January, 2000. USDA Crop Profile for Cotton in Alabama. Prepared December 1999. USDA Crop Profile for Cotton in Arkansas. Prepared August 1999. USDA.

Crop Profile for Cotton in Tennessee. December, 1998. USDA.

Crop Profile for Cotton in Texas. Prepared September 1999. USDA.

Crop Profile for Lettuce (Iceberg) in California. March 1999. USDA.

Crop P rofile for Lettuc e (Leaf) in Ca lifornia. April 1 999. USDA.

Crop P rofile for Be ans (Snap ) in Michiga n. Prepar ed August 1999. U SDA.

Jackson, L ., K. Mayb erry, S. Ko ike, F. Laem mlen, K. Sc hulback, an d W. Chaney. Leaf L ettuce Pro duction in California. U niversity of Califo rnia, Division of Agriculture and Natu ral Resour ces, Public ation 721 6.

David Adams. Extension Ento mologist, U niversity of Ge orgia.

Les Breschini. John P ryor and C ompany, Salinas, Califor nia (a profes sional fertilizer co mpany)

Edward A. Kurtz. California Lettuce Research Board. 5 Gary Lentz. Cotton E ntomologist. University of T ennessee  Knoxville Roger Leonard. C otton Ento mologist, Lo uisiana State U niversity.

Curtis Petzo ldt. Vegetab le IPM Co ordin ator, Corn ell University.

Belinda P latts. Pest Con trol Agent. D ole Fresh F oods.

Robin Rosenbaum. Pesticide Registration P rogram M anager, M ichigan De partment o f Agriculture.

Ron Smith. Cotton E xtension En tomologist. Auburn U niversity.