[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 261-263]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-1078]
RIN 1625-AA87

Moving Security Zone Around Escorted Vessels on the Lower
Mississippi River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port of New Orleans (COTP New Orleans) is
establishing a Moving Security Zone on the Mississippi river, mile
marker 88.0 through mile marker 106.0, extending 300 yards on all sides
of vessels being escorted by one or more Coast Guard assets or other
federal, state, or local law enforcement agency assets. A vessel may
request permission of the COTP New Orleans or the on-scene Coast Guard
or enforcement agency asset to enter the security zone, and if
permitted, must proceed at the minimum safe speed and must comply with
the orders of the COTP New Orleans or the on-scene asset. The COTP New
Orleans will inform the public of the existence or status of the
security zones around escorted vessels in the regulated area by Marine
Safety Information Bulletins or Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This
moving security zone is necessary to protect vessels deemed to be in
need of escort protection by the COTP New Orleans for security reasons.

DATES: This rule is effective from January 1, 2013, through March 31,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-1078]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kenneth Blair, Sector New
Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS--Department of Homeland Security
FR--Federal Register
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Based on a risk evaluation conducted on
December 4, 2012, the Coast Guard has decided that a moving security
zone regulation is required from on or about January 1 until March 31,
2013. This security zone is required to protect escorted vessels and
personnel from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature. The NPRM
process would unnecessarily delay the effective dates and would be
contrary to public interest by delaying or foregoing the necessary
protections required for the escorted vessels and personnel.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. This temporary final rule is
needed to protect escorted vessels and personnel from destruction,
loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or
other causes of a similar nature. The 30-day notice period would be
impracticable and unnecessarily delay the effective dates and
protections required for these escorted vessels and personnel.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The purpose of this rule is to provide enhanced protection of
escorted vessels on a portion of the Lower Mississippi River between
January and April 2013. Certain vessels, including high capacity
passenger vessels, vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes as
defined in 33 CFR part 60, tank vessels constructed to carry oil or
hazardous materials in bulk, and vessels carrying liquefied hazardous
gas as defined in 33 CFR part 127 have been deemed by the COTP New
Orleans to require escort protection during transit between mile marker
88.0 and mile marker 106.0 of the Lower Mississippi River, between
January and April, 2013. Establishment of a moving security zone allows
the Coast Guard to provide enhanced security of escorted vessels during
transit, thereby protecting the escorted vessels and the public from
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of similar nature. When considering this
rule the Coast Guard considered the alternative option of vessel
traffic restrictions during the transit of vessels deemed in need of
escorts. We determined that establishment of a moving security zone
provides for enhanced protection of escorted vessels while causing
little if any disruption to other routine navigation since most vessels
will be allowed to transit within the outer 250 yards of the security
zone once a deviation to the rule is requested and granted.
    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 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; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing moving security zones for escorted
vessels to protect the escorted vessels and personnel. While this rule
is effective, when an escorted vessel is transiting between miles 88
and 106 on the Lower Mississippi River, there will be a 300-yard
security zone around the escorted vessel. The COTP New Orleans may
permit persons and vessels to transit through the security zone at a
minimum safe speed, so long as no vessel or person enters within the
50-yard portion of the security zone closest to the vessel. Permission
to enter the security zone may be requested from the COTP New Orleans
through the on-scene Coast Guard or enforcement agency asset, via VHF-
FM Ch.12, VHF-FM Ch. 67, or the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Center at
(504) 365-2330. The COTP New Orleans will inform the public of the
existence or status of the security zones around escorted vessels in
the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins or Broadcast
Notice to Mariners. Coast Guard assets

or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets will be
clearly identified by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The impact of this security zone
will be minimal as the zone will only be enforced for short periods of
time while escorted vessels transit through an 18-mile stretch of the
Lower Mississippi River. Other vessel traffic on the river will be able
to transit through the outer 250 yards of the security zone with the
permission of the COTP. Additionally, the security zone location is
within the New Orleans Harbor Vessel Service Area that requires vessels
transiting to check in when entering the area or when departing berth.
This pre-existing check in requirement will assist in granting early
permission for deviation from the rule allowing vessels to pass through
the zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit in the vicinity of mile marker 88.0 through mile marker 106.0
of the Lower Mississippi River, extending 300 yards in all directions
of an escorted vessel. This security zone would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This security zone would be activated, and thus
subject to enforcement, for only those times when a vessel is under
escort. The security zone location is within the New Orleans Harbor
Vessel Service Area that requires vessels transiting to check in when
entering the area or when departing berth. This pre-existing check in
requirement will assist in granting early permission for deviation from
the rule allowing vessels to pass through the zone. Although the safety
zone would apply 300 yards around the escorted vessel and encompass
almost the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before
the activation of the zone, we would issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the river.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a moving security
zone around escorted vessels. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

E. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.06-1, 6.05-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T08-1078 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1078  Moving Security Zone around escorted vessels on the
Lower Mississippi River.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: Navigable
waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 88.0 to mile
marker 106.0, extending 300 yards in all directions of escorted
vessels. Escorted vessels will be escorted by one or more Coast Guard
assets or other federal, state, or local law enforcement agency assets
clearly identifiable by lights, vessel markings, or with agency
insignia.
    (b) Effective Period. This rule is effective January 1, 2013
through March 31, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.33
of this part, vessels are prohibited from entering or transiting the
security zones described in paragraph (a) of this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T08-1078.
    (2) If granted permission to enter a security zone, a vessel must
operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course,
unless required to maintain speed by the Navigation Rules, and shall
proceed as directed by the Coast Guard. When within the security zone,
no vessel or person is allowed within 50 yards of the escorted vessel
unless authorized by the Coast Guard.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring deviations from this rule must
request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans through the
on-scene Coast Guard or other enforcement agency asset, via VHF-FM Ch.
12, VHF-FM Ch. 67, or the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Center at (504)
365-2330.
    (4) All persons and vessels granted permission to enter a security
zone must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port New
Orleans and designated personnel. Designated personnel include
commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard, and
local, state, and federal law enforcement officers on clearly
identified law enforcement agency vessels.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a
designated representative will inform the public through marine safety
information bulletins or broadcast notices to mariners of the
enforcement of the security zone.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
P.W. Gautier,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2012-31559 Filed 1-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67256-67261]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0518; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-150-AD;
Amendment 39-17231; AD 2012-21-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600
series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by events of excessive rudder pedal inputs and consequent high
loads on the vertical stabilizer on several airplanes. This AD requires
either incorporating a design change to the rudder control system and/
or other systems, or installing a stop rudder inputs warning (SRIW)
modification. We are issuing this AD to prevent loads on the vertical
stabilizer that exceed ultimate design loads, which could cause failure
of the vertical stabilizer and consequent reduced controllability of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 14, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of December 14,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For the service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may 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>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-
2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2011 (76 FR
28914). That NPRM proposed to require incorporating a design change to
the rudder control system and/or other systems to address the unsafe
condition.

Relevant Service Information

    Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011), Airbus has
issued the following service information:
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-22-6055, Revision
01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6054, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6056, dated April 25, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6140, dated May 4, 2012
     Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-22-2064, Revision
01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2063, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2065, dated April 25, 2012
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2144, dated May 4, 2012
    These service bulletins describe procedures related to the SRIW
modification. The procedures include installing a SRIW device,
activating the SRIW device, upgrading the flight control computer to
introduce the SRIW logic, and upgrading the flight warning computer. We
have revised paragraph (g) in this final rule to allow accomplishment
of this modification as an optional method of compliance with the
requirements of the AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011)

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA), support the intent of the NPRM (76
FR 28914, May 19, 2011).

Requests To Withdraw NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011): Unjustifiable
Burden on Operators

    UPS and FedEx requested that we withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May
19, 2011).
    UPS stated that, in light of its existing operational and
monitoring processes, the cost of the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011)
would be a severe and unnecessary burden relative to its benefit. UPS
stated that its flightcrews operate the airplanes in a manner that
would not warrant the need for the proposed systems. UPS described its
A300 flight training program, flight operations quality assurance
(FOQA) program, and manual changes that were prompted by the incidents,
and added that its training and awareness programs have been enhanced
to specifically address the inherent high-speed sensitivity or response
of the A300 rudder control system. UPS concluded that its flight
training program emphasizes proper use of the rudder for which the
rudder has been certified, and its robust FOQA program coupled with a
review of maximum lateral loading from actual flights demonstrates that
UPS flightcrews do not induce heavy side loading with improper rudder
use. In addition, UPS stated that the FAA has already taken numerous
actions to address this safety issue.
    FedEx stated that its current flightcrew training practices have
ensured elimination of excessive rudder pedal inputs on FedEx's Model
A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. FedEx further detailed that it has
monitored and recorded events of lateral G exceedences at FedEx as a
result of FAA AD 2002-06-09, Amendment 39-12686 (67 FR 13259, March 22,
2002; corrected at 67 FR 51459, August 8, 2002), and all such events
have been a result of something other than pilot rudder pedal input.
    Although the FAA agrees with the importance of enhanced training
and operational awareness of Model A300 and A310 rudder pedal
sensitivity, we disagree to withdraw the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19,
2011). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the
rudder pedal's sensitivity contributed to the American Airlines flight
587 accident, and, during a recent upset on an airplane with a similar
system, the pilot made excessive pedal input, thinking he was actually
correcting an airplane malfunction. Even with significant emphasis on
training and rudder pedal sensitivity awareness, however, there have
been additional full rudder pedal reversal occurrences on airplanes
with similar rudder control systems. We have concluded that training
alone is inadequate, and we have determined that a modification such as
the pedal travel limiter unit (PTLU) or other design modification is
necessary to address the unsafe condition. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue. Based on the best information
available on possible flightcrew training and possible design
modifications, we have identified the need to incorporate a design
change that will further address this unsafe condition. In addition,
the FAA has tasked a joint authority-industry group to recommend
criteria that might be used to evaluate other models. Upon acceptance
of appropriate criteria, the FAA will begin to assess other in-service
airplanes. Currently, the group is scheduled to complete its work in
late 2013. See the FAA's response to the comments under ``Request to
Expand Applicability'' in this final rule.

Request To Emphasize Training

    In addition to supporting design enhancements to prevent
inadvertent rudder over control, ALPA stated there should continue to
be emphasis on the appropriate use of rudder in training programs.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter that training programs are
beneficial. Since the American Airlines Flight 587 accident, the FAA
has emphasized training with letters to all affected operators
notifying them of concerns regarding the need for industry-wide pilot
knowledge and training on proper use of rudder pedals, in addition to
the potential consequences of some maneuvers that might exceed the
structural limits of the vertical tail. The FAA also tasked a working
group to help develop specific training programs for rudder usage on
all transport category airplanes. The FAA has also added language in
section 25.1583(a)(3) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
25.1583(a)(3)) to warn against control reversals. Training will
continue to be emphasized in the future; however, the intent of this AD
is to require a design change be made to the airplane to correct the
unsafe condition. We have not changed this final rule regarding this
issue.

Request for Alternative Solution

    Airbus suggested that, in lieu of the PTLU design modification
discussed in the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011), we revise the NPRM
to add another way to comply--by installing a warning light on the
glareshield directly in front of each pilot and an associated ``stop
rudder inputs'' aural warning, in addition to revising the airplane
flight manual and reinforced flightcrew training. Airbus noted that
flightcrew failure to use proper techniques was a contributing factor
to the excessive rudder pedal inputs.
    According to Airbus, its warning system will deter pilots from
continuing the application of rapid alternating and large rudder pedal
inputs, and is a more suitable solution than the PTLU modification
proposed by the FAA.
    We acknowledge Airbus's suggested solution, which was unavailable
for consideration at the time we issued the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19,
2011). Following the receipt of the Airbus comments, the FAA has
evaluated the Airbus alternative and found the ``stop rudder inputs''
warning (SRIW) modification combined with suitable flightcrew training
programs provides an acceptable mitigation for the unsafe condition. As
stated previously, we agree to change this final rule to allow the SRIW
modification as an optional method of compliance with the requirements
of the AD. In addition, since we issued the NPRM, the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2012-0088, dated
June 25, 2012, to require installation of the SRIW modification on
Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes to address this unsafe
condition.

Requests for Alternative Compliance Method

    Francis Gentile requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May
19, 2011) to include, as one way to comply with the NPRM, the option to
tape a yaw string onto the front windows to give the pilot maximum
feedback against excessive yaw and pilot-induced oscillation.
    We disagree with this request. The unsafe condition presents itself
with dynamic yaw excursions linked to rudder pedal reversals. Yaw
indicators already present on the flight deck have

not proven effective in previous rudder pedal reversal events.
    Mr. Gentile also suggested adhering a pointed cone on each rudder
pedal to give the pilot the progressive feedback sensation of force
applied to the pedal and possibly cause pain in the ball of the foot or
a twisting ankle to deter the pilot from making inputs or at least
alert the pilot to stop making such an input. The commenter pointed out
that this solution might be less expensive than the proposed
modification. The commenter noted that the cone might also interfere
with other pedal functions such as braking.
    We do not agree with this comment. The commenter has provided an
unproven design suggestion. There is no evidence that such devices
would be effective at preventing the unsafe condition. The rudder
pedals are used normally for taxiing and flying the airplane. Adding
cone devices to the pedals may interfere with normal pedal usage. There
are certain safety-critical conditions where it is necessary for the
pilot to apply rapid hard pedal inputs. Anything that interferes with
the pilot's ability to make necessary inputs could reduce safety. Such
devices might also defeat the purpose of the pedal adjustment feature
that allows shorter or taller pilots to use the pedal, and affect
appropriate steering and braking. Under the provisions of paragraph (h)
of this AD, however, we will consider requests for approval of
different compliance methods if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of
safety.
    We have not changed the AD regarding these issues.

Request To Expand Applicability

    Airbus questioned the basis for the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19,
2011)--that rudder pedal sensitivity is limited to Model A300-600 and
A310 series airplanes. Airbus added that rapid alternating and large
pilot rudder inputs while enroute are inappropriate and have the
potential to be unsafe for a wider fleet of large transport airplanes.
Airbus identified several resources supporting this position.
    We infer that Airbus wants us to expand the applicability of the
NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011), or otherwise consider similar
rulemaking to extend to other airplane models and airplanes produced by
other manufacturers. While the FAA has not determined that an unsafe
condition exists on other airplanes, we are considering a number of
factors on other airplanes, including pedal reversals, pedal
sensitivity, and airplane dynamics and fin loads. NTSB Safety
Recommendation A-04-56 recommends developing a revised standard to
ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight
envelope, including limits for rudder pedal sensitivity. Currently an
FAA aviation rulemaking advisory committee (ARAC) has been assigned to
evaluate this safety recommendation. Pending the ARAC recommendation,
the FAA will determine whether other airplanes have a similar unsafe
condition that needs to be addressed by rulemaking or airworthiness
actions. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Model A310-200 Airplanes From Applicability

    Airbus requested that we revise the applicability of the NPRM (76
FR 28914, May 19, 2011) to remove Model A310-200 airplanes because
their remaining service life is short.
    We disagree with the request. Service life projections vary among
operators and are difficult to accurately determine. Airbus did not
provide any specific service life projections. In addition, the
utilization rate of these airplanes is low, which can preserve and
extend their life. We therefore do not consider this request to have
adequate justification. We have not changed the final rule regarding
this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time: Account for PTLU Development Time

    FedEx requested that we extend the proposed compliance time to
account for development time for the PTLU.
    We disagree with the request. We have determined that the unsafe
condition warrants corrective action within the specified time frame.
If developing the PTLU and incorporating the mandated changes require
additional time, the FAA may consider revising the AD to extend the
compliance time, or provide such relief through approval of an AMOC to
extend the compliance time of the AD according to the provisions of
paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding
this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time: Allow for New Maintenance Procedures

    FedEx requested that we revise the compliance time in the NPRM (76
FR 28914, May 19, 2011) to allow time to incorporate new maintenance
procedures to accommodate the proposed modification. Based on past
experience, FedEx considered the proposed 48-month compliance time
unrealistic to account for changes in maintenance programs. FedEx also
requested that we extend the proposed compliance time to 72 months to
allow time to revise the master minimum equipment list (MMEL) to
support dispatch reliability of the newly installed system. UPS stated
that at least 6 years would be needed to install the PTLU on its fleet.
    We disagree with the FedEx proposal. In determining the appropriate
compliance time for this AD, we considered many factors, including
those related to maintenance program adjustments. Further, once the
PTLU is developed and ready for incorporation on the fleet, operators
may request MMEL relief via an AMOC request to the AD. We determined
that the compliance time, as proposed, will maintain the necessary
level of safety and allow adequate time for operators to modify their
maintenance program. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.

Request To Extend Compliance Time: Account for Design Service Goals

    Airbus requested that we revise the proposed compliance time to
consider the Airbus design service goals (DSGs) for the affected
airplanes. Airbus provided a proposed grace period for any airplane
close to its DSG value near the end of the compliance time, until the
airplane's certificate of airworthiness is withdrawn.
    We disagree with the request. This AD includes all airplanes that
have the defined unsafe condition regardless if the airplane is
currently in operation, or has been removed from service. As Airbus has
described the operators may choose to further invest in the airplanes
and operate them in what Airbus calls the extended service goals (ESG).
This AD does not prevent an airplane from being operated beyond the DSG
so a grace period for any airplane close to its DSG does not maintain
an adequate level of safety. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of
this final rule, however, we will consider requests to approve an
extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the extension would also provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Concern for Length of Time To Develop and Mandate Fix

    Two commenters expressed concern about the length of time it has
taken to develop and mandate a fix for the unsafe condition.
    The NTSB, although encouraged by the various actions being
considered to address the unsafe condition, was concerned about the
lack of a definitive

fix for the rudder system. Since the exact details of the PTLU fix have
not yet been available, the NTSB could not determine the benefit of
this system. The NTSB was also concerned about the amount of time spent
to make the design change available to operators.
    Geoffrey Barrance also questioned this timeframe, and asked whether
we have new information about the need to mandate a modification of the
rudder system.
    The FAA understands the NTSB concern about the lack of definitive
PTLU design information provided with the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19,
2011), and the concern about the amount of time that has transpired to
make a design change available to operators. As stated in the NPRM,
there were no service instructions available at that time to address
the unsafe condition. However, the FAA determined that taking
additional time to develop service information before beginning the
corrective action notification process was not in the public's
interest. Since the date of the NPRM publication, Airbus has developed
a design change that is a more cost-effective solution than the
originally planned PTLU, which has also received design approval by the
EASA and the FAA.

Request To Clarify Modification Approval Timeframe

    Geoffrey Barrance acknowledged the FAA's possible reluctance to
limit the corrective action to a single technical approach, but
questioned why it would take 3 years to mandate installation of the
PTLU.
    We have established a compliance time of 4 years to implement the
required design change, including an estimated 3-year timeframe for
developing and approving a modification that ensures that parts and
installation instructions are available. The FAA is confident that a
modification will be available in a timely manner and that the
compliance time, as proposed, will leave adequate time for operators to
implement the changes required by this AD. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Background in NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011)

    Based on its request for an alternative solution to the unsafe
condition, Airbus requested changes to the Discussion section of the
NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011).
    Where the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011) referred to events of
``excessive rudder pedal inputs'' that resulted in high vertical
stabilizer loads, Airbus suggested that we recharacterize the events as
``excessive rapid alternating and large pilot rudder pedal inputs.''
Airbus described the reported conditions that support this finding.
    Where the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011) describes the PTLU as
one option under consideration for the modification to the rudder
control system, Airbus suggested that we also state that the PTLU has
no effect on crew awareness that rapid alternating and larger rudder
inputs addressed in section 25.1583 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 25.1583) are always inappropriate. Airbus stated that if a
flightcrew were to perform such inputs, the loads created would be
lower for an airplane fitted with a PTLU than one without a PTLU. But
the flightcrew would still have the potential to add to the loads in
the same direction induced on the vertical stabilizer by an increasing
sideslip. Airbus concluded that high loads to the vertical stabilizer
will occur anyway if the pilot continues to use the inappropriate
piloting technique, but a given level of high loads and the associated
hazard will be reached a few seconds later for an airplane fitted with
a PTLU.
    We agree that the requested changes might clarify the background
information of the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011). The Discussion
section, however, is not restated in a final rule, so we have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Include Additional Background Information

    Francis Gentile requested that we add a journal article to the AD
docket. This article indicated the need for design improvements to
relieve the limited adaptive capability of pilots.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request, but the article was not
part of the AD development process and would serve no purpose in the AD
docket. In light of potential proprietary issues and the
appropriateness of posting this type of article in the AD docket, we
have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Provide Information on Evaluation of Rudder Pedal
Sensitivity

    ALPA requested an evaluation of rudder pedal sensitivity and means
to prevent inadvertent over control.
    The FAA has already tasked the ARAC to consider general rulemaking
in 14 CFR part 25 to address pedal sensitivity as well as several other
considerations to ensure that pilot-commanded pedal reversals are safe
or precluded, or that the system design reduces the likelihood of pedal
reversals. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request for Information

    The NTSB requested information on Airbus's development of a flight
deck warning light that does not incorporate any mechanical changes to
the rudder system. The NTSB is concerned that a warning light alone
will not rectify the unsafe condition.
    The SRIW warning modification consists of a prominent warning light
and a loud verbal warning directing the pilot to cease inputs to the
rudder. After reviewing the design, analyses, and simulator
demonstrations, the FAA has concluded that these alerts, taken
together, are compelling, timely, and will prevent the flightcrew from
continuing the inappropriate rudder inputs prior to exceeding the
ultimate design loads that could result in failure of the vertical
stabilizer. The FAA has determined that the SRIW modification, combined
with suitable flightcrew training programs, provides an acceptable
mitigation for the unsafe condition.
    As explained previously, we have changed the final rule to include
the SRIW modification as one approved method for complying with this
AD.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    Airbus noted that the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011) included
estimated costs only for the PTLU installation. Airbus requested that
we revise the NPRM to include the estimated costs to install an alert
warning system. UPS asserted that the NPRM underestimated the costs of
the proposed modification, which would involve upgrading computers and
installing warning light consoles, switching relays, and associated
interconnect wiring.
    We agree to revise the cost estimate. Cost information for the
alert warning system was not available when we issued the NPRM (76 FR
28914, May 19, 2011). As one of the modifications accepted by the FAA,
it should be included. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section
accordingly in this final rule.

Request To Change Air Transport Association (ATA) Code

    Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (d) of the NPRM (76 FR
28914, May 19, 2011) to add ATA Code 31, Instruments, to reflect
Airbus's proposal to install a crew warning as one way to comply with
the NPRM.
    We agree with the request and rationale. We have changed paragraph
(d) in this final rule accordingly.

Questions About Safety Recommendations (SRs)

    Mr. Barrance asked whether the NPRM (76 FR 28914, May 19, 2011)
addressed NTSB SRs A-04-56 and A-04-57, and whether failure to refer to
SR A-04-58 was an omission.
    An FAA ARAC is considering general rulemaking to address rudder
pedal sensitivity, including factors beyond those specified in this AD.
This AD is in response to SRs A-04-058, A-04-044, and A-04-063. We have
not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 215 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The unsafe condition may be addressed by installing a PTLU or alert
warning system, although these may not be the only acceptable methods.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD, based on preliminary information provided by the
manufacturer.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average labor                     Cost per
                  Installation                      Work hours     rate per hour       Parts          product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTLU............................................             100             $85        $190,000        $198,500
Alert warning system for products with a flight               32              85          70,000          72,720
 warning computer standard developed from year
 2000 and onwards...............................
Alert warning system for remaining airplanes....              32              85         105,000         107,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-21-15 Airbus: Amendment 39-17231; Docket No. FAA-2011-0518;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-150-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 14, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes;
Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls; and 31, Instruments.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by events of excessive alternating rudder
pedal inputs and consequent loads on the vertical stabilizer that
exceed ultimate design loads. Such events could lead to failure of
the vertical stabilizer and consequent reduced controllability of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD to
address the unsafe condition identified in paragraph (e) of this AD.
    (1) Incorporate a design change to the rudder control system
and/or other systems, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA.
    (2) Install a stop rudder inputs warning (SRIW) modification by
doing the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Do the applicable
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A) and (g)(2)(i)(B) of
this AD.
    (A) Install a SRIW device, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6054, including
Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2012. Before or concurrently with the
SRIW installation, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i)(A)(1) and (g)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Upgrade the flight control computer (FCC) to introduce the
SRIW logic, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6056, dated April 25, 2012.
    (2) Upgrade the flight warning computer (FWC) to introduce the
SRIW aural capability, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6140, dated May 4,
2012.
    (B) Activate the SRIW device, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-22-6055, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31,
2012.
    (ii) For Model A310 series airplanes: Do the actions specified
in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Install a SRIW device, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2063, including
Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2012. Before or concurrently with the
SRIW installation, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (g)(2)(ii)(A)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Upgrade the FCC to introduce the SRIW logic, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-22-2065, dated April 25, 2012.
    (2) Upgrade the FWC to introduce the SRIW aural capability, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-31-2144, dated May 4, 2012.
    (B) Activate the SRIW device, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-22-2064, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31,
2012.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the Manager, ANM-116, send it to
the attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For related information, refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0088, dated June 25,
2012, and the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (i)(1)(viii) of this AD, for related information.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-22-6055, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-22-2064, Revision
01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6054, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6056, dated April 25, 2012.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6140, dated May 4, 2012.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2063, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012.
    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2065, dated April 25,
2012.
    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2144, dated May 4, 2012.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-22-6055, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-22-2064, Revision
01, including Appendix 01, dated May 31, 2012.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6054, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-6056, dated April 25, 2012.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6140, dated May 4, 2012.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2063, including Appendix
01, dated June 20, 2012.
    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2065, dated April 25,
2012.
    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2144, dated May 4, 2012.
    (3) For the service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26963 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58997-58999]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0483]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Yerba Buena Island
within the San Francisco Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. This security
zone is necessary to provide for the security of military service
members onboard vessels moored at the pier and the government property
associated with these valuable national assets. This regulation will
prohibit the entry of, transiting through, or anchoring within a
portion of the San Francisco Bay extending from Yerba Buena Island
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San
Francisco.

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0483 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email LT William Harris, Sector San Francisco, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    In October 2021, the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco
identified a need for clearer Aids to Navigation to inform the boating
public of restricted areas near Yerba Buena Island. Further discussion
discovered that current regulations established a Restricted Area, but
not a Security Zone. The COTP has determined that potential security
concerns associated with the mooring of Coast Guard Cutters necessitate
a Coast Guard Security Zone.
    In response, on July 18, 2022 the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Security Zone; San Francisco Bay,
San Francisco, CA'' (87 FR 42665). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended August 17,
2022, we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The purpose of this rule is to
ensure the security of Coast Guard facilities, personnel, and vessels,
at all times within the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on
the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern
shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W;
east to 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N,
122[deg]21'35'' W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena
Island.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July
18, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the regulatory text in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a security zone within the navigable waters
of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a
point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at
37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27'' N,
122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a
point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the security zone unless authorized
by the COTP.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the security zone. The effect of this rule will not be
significant because vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, and
this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone that would prohibit entry within navigable waters of the
San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point
along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37[deg]48'27'' N,
122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W; north
to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a point on the northeastern
side of Yerba Buena Island. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1189 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1189   Security Zone; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island
from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at
37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27'' N,
122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a
point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. These coordinates
are based on North American Datum (NAD) 83.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general security zone
regulations in subpart D of this part, entry into the area of the
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco.

    (2) The security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP.
    (3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP by VHF Marine
Radio channel 16 or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone
(415) 399-3547. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement. The Captain of the Port will enforce the security
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section and may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of this security zone by any Federal, State,
county, municipal, or private agency.

    Dated: September 23, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-21093 Filed 9-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44353-44354]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-11-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this
proceeding on March 5, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene its annual Commissioner-led Reliability
Technical Conference on Thursday, September 30, 2021 from approximately
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The purpose of this conference is
to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the

Bulk-Power System. The conference will be held virtually via WebEx.
    The final agenda for this event is attached. The conference will be
open for the public to attend virtually, and there is no fee for
attendance. A second supplemental notice will be issued prior to the
conference with the confirmed speakers. Information on the technical
conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's website, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The
conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the conference will be
available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Lodie White at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 6, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17241 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37667-37668]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14410-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
Telluride Energy, LLC

    On May 17, 2012, Telluride Energy, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Trinidad Lake Hydroelectric
Project (Trinidad Lake Project or project) at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) Lake Trinidad dam on the Purgatoire River, near the
City of Trinidad in Las Animas County, Colorado. 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 proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
penstock that would take water from the existing Trinidad Lake; (2) a
new powerhouse at the base of the existing Trinidad dam containing a 1-
megawatt turbine-generator; (3) a new 2,000-foot-long 12.47-kilovolt
primary transmission line connecting the project with Trinidad
Municipal Electric Utility's transmission lines; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual
generation of 3,000 megawatt-hours and operate utilizing releases from
Trinidad Lake, as directed by the Corps.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kurt Johnson, Telluride Energy, LLC, 100
West Colorado, Suite 222, P.O. Box 1646, Telluride, CO 814325; phone:
(970) 729-5051.
    FERC Contact: Joseph Hassell; 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-14410) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15246 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 796-797]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-43-000.
    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.
    Description: Application of South Central MCN LLC for Authorization
under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-44-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Request For Approvals Pursuant to Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-26-000.
    Applicants: Lincoln Clean Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status (Tahoka Wind, LLC).
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5278.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3199-004.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Inc.
    Description: Updated Market Analysis in the Central Region of MDU
Resources Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5282.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1596-005; ER15-1599-005; ER14-1569-006; ER10-
2616-012; ER11-4398-007; ER11-4400-009; ER15-1958-004; ER10-3247-012;
ER14-922-005; ER14-883-007; ER14-924-005; ER15-2535-002.
    Applicants: Dynegy Commercial Asset Management, LLC, Dynegy Energy
Services (East), LLC, Dynegy Energy Services, LLC, Dynegy Marketing and
Trade, LLC, Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, Dynegy Power Marketing,
LLC, Dynegy Resources Management, LLC, Electric Energy, Inc., Illinois
Power Generating Company, Illinois Power Marketing Company, Illinois
Power Resources Generating, LLC, Midwest Electric Power, Inc.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of the Dynegy Central
MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-573-000.
    Applicants: Montpelier Generating Station, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-574-000.
    Applicants: Monument Generating Station, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-575-000.
    Applicants: O.H. Hutchings CT, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-576-000.
    Applicants: Sidney, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-577-000.
    Applicants: Tait Electric Generating Station, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-578-000.
    Applicants: Yankee Street, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-579-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT Sch 12-
Appdx and Appdx A re: 2018 RTEP Annual Cost Allocations to be effective
1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20171229-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-580-000.
    Applicants: PE Berkeley, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: PE Berkeley Notice of
Cancellation to be effective 1/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-581-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Initial rate filing: 62 MW TSA No. 493 between PNM and
Avangrid Renewables to be effective 12/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-582-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Initial rate filing: 100 MW TSA No. 494 between PNM
and Avangrid Renewables to be effective 12/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-583-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Initial rate filing: 100 MW TSA No. 495 between PNM
and Avangrid Renewables to be effective 12/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-584-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 100 MW First Revised TSA No.
494 between PNM and Avangrid Renewables to be effective 12/20/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-585-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 100 MW First Revised TSA No.
495 between PNM and Avangrid Renewables to be effective 12/20/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-586-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position AC2-137,
Original Service Agreement No. 4880 to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-587-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Generator Interconnection
Agreement to be effective 3/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5323.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-18-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Application of Michigan Electric Transmission Company,
LLC under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 1/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180102-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/18.

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

    Dated: January 2, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00097 Filed 1-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P