[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26715-26716]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0398; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+,
EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters with certain fire
extinguishing systems installed. This proposed AD would require
modifying the fire extinguishing system injection tubes. This proposed
AD is prompted by a report that the injection tubes are deforming due
to heat. The proposed actions are intended to prevent deformation of
the fire extinguishing system injection tubes during a fire, which
could result in impaired distribution of the fire extinguishing agent,
failure of the fire extinguishing system to contain an engine fire, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2011-0172, dated September 7, 2011 (AD 2011-0172), to correct an
unsafe condition for ECD Model EC 135 P1, EC 135 P2, EC 135 P2+, EC 135
T1, EC 135 T2, EC 135 T2+, EC 635 T1, EC 635 P2+, and EC 635 T2+
helicopters with a single engine fire extinguishing system, part number
(P/N) L262M1808101, P/N L262M1812101, or P/N L262M1812102, or with a
dual engine fire extinguishing system, P/N L262M1813102, installed.
EASA advises that the fire extinguishing system injection tubes on
Model EC 135 and EC 635 helicopters ``are not compliant with the
relevant airworthiness requirements, because they are also forming part
of the firewall.'' According to EASA, during an engine fire, this
condition may affect the function of the fire extinguishing system and
degrade the fire containment capability of the system to the extent
that it is incapable of extinguishing an engine fire. For these
reasons, EASA issued AD 2011-0172, which requires modification of the
affected injection tubes by removing part of the tubing and replacing
it with a section of heat-resistant injection tubing.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
the Federal Republic of Germany and are approved for operation in the
United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the Federal
Republic of Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified
us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined
that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    ECD has issued EC135 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC135-26A-
003, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2011, which describes procedures to
remove a section of the fire extinguishing system injection tubing and
replace it with heat-resistant injection tubing.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 30 days, cutting out a
portion of the existing injection tubes and replacing that portion with
a section of new injection tubing.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to helicopters with a dual engine fire
extinguishing system and this proposed AD does not because these
systems are only installed on helicopters operated by the German
Federal Police and are not operated in the U. S. Also, the EASA AD
applies to Model EC635 helicopters, and the proposed AD does not
because the

EC635 is not type-certificated in the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 246 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Modifying the injection tubes would
require about 4.5 work-hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour
and required parts would cost about $900, for a cost of $1,282 per
helicopter and a total cost to U.S. operators of $315,372.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2013-0398; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-065-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model
EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+
helicopters with a fire extinguishing system part number (P/N)
L262M1808101, P/N L262M1812101, or P/N L262M1812102 installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as deformation of the fire
extinguishing system injection tubes during an engine fire, which
could result in impaired distribution of the fire extinguishing
agent, failure of the fire extinguishing system to contain a fire,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 8, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days, modify each fire extinguishing system
injection tube by removing and replacing a section of the tubing in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of
Eurocopter EC135 Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-26A-003, Revision
2, dated December 19, 2011.
    (2) Do not install an injection tube, P/N L262M1810101, P/N
L262M1811801, or P/N L262M1809101, on any helicopter unless it has
been modified as required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency AD No. 2011-0172, dated September 7, 2011.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2620:
Extinguishing System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 26, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-10911 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 68877]
[DOCID:fr29de09-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[500-1]

In the Matter of: GH3 International, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

December 24, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of
trading in the securities of GH3 International, Inc. Questions have
arisen concerning the adequacy of publicly available information
concerning the entity's corporate and operational status and its
financial condition. GH3 International, Inc. is quoted on the Pink
Sheets under the ticker symbol GHTI.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of the investors require a suspension of trading in
securities of the above-listed entity.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed entity is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST,
December 24, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on January 8, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30943 Filed 12-24-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 14071]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15c3-1, SEC File No. 270-197, OMB Control No. 3235-0200

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-
1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c3-1 requires brokers-dealers to have at all times
sufficient liquid assets to meet their current liabilities,
particularly the claims of customers. The rule facilitates the
monitoring of the financial condition of broker-dealers by the
Commission and the various self-regulatory organizations. It is
estimated that broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission
and subject to the collection of information requirements of Rule 15c3-
1 incur an aggregate annual time burden of 65,915.31 hours to comply
with this rule and an aggregate annual external cost of $160,000.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 13, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05274 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 6103]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER09-36-002
    Applicants: Prairie Wind Transmission LLC
    Description: Amended Compliance filing of Prairie Wind
Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5331
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2016-002; ER10-2011-004
    Applicants: PPL Montana, LLC, PPL EnergyPlus, LLC
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of PPL Montana, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5319
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-004
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5327
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4501-003
    Applicants: Caney River Wind Project, LLC
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Caney River Wind
Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5322
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-309-000
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.'s Response to the Commission's December 30, 2011 request for
additional information.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5318
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-310-000
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company, Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Response to Letter Requesting Additional Information
of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5323
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000
    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, Big Sandy Peaker
Plant, LLC, California Electric Marketing, LLC, Crete Energy Venture,
LLC, CSOLAR IV South, LLC, High Desert Power Project, LLC, Kiowa Power
Partners, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, New Covert Generating
Company, LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC, Rolling Hills
Generating, LLC, Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P., Tenaska
    Alabama II Partners, L.P., Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., Tenaska
Gateway Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Georgia Partners, L.P., Tenaska Power
Management, LLC, Tenaska Power Services Co., Tenaska Virginia Partners,
L.P., Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P., Texas Electric Marketing,
LLC,TPF Generation Holdings, LLC, Wolf Hills Energy, LLC
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5320
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000
    Applicants: Macho Springs Power I, LLC
    Description: Site Control Report for Q4 2011 of Macho Springs Power
I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5325
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    Docket Numbers: LA11-4-000
    Applicants: Bluegrass Generation Company, LLC, Blythe Energy, LLC,
Calhoun Power Company, LLC, DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC,
Doswell Limited Partnership, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, LS Power
Marketing, LLC, LSP Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, LSP University Park,
LLC, Renaissance Power, LLC, Riverside Generating Company, LLC, Rocky
Road Power, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC, University Park Energy, LLC,
Wallingford Energy LLC, Wyoming Colorado Intertie, LLC
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Bluegrass
Generation Company, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/30/12
    Accession Number: 20120130-5326
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/12

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
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 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2713 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Steam Electric Data Request Follow-Up Questions

Project Name:  Steam Electric Detailed Study

	Project No.:  0<IP_ADDRESS>

Company Name:  Georgia Power

	Contact Name:  William R. Evans

Plant Name:  Plant Yates	Contact Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>

or Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Sarah Holman

Company Affiliation: ERG	Date: 11/26/07

This document contains CBI:   ___  Yes    x       No

	Type of  Contact:     x      Email           Telephone

General Subject:  Data Request Assistance / Follow-Up

Follow-Up Question Number	CBI =

Yes (Y)

No (N)	Data Request Question Number	Data Request Page Number

Question/Answer

1	N	11	B-8	Q: Frequency of drainage from coal pile is given as 365 days.  Does the plant have an estimation of the actual number of days of drainage from the coal pile, or an estimation of the number of days of rain in 2006?

A:

2	N	16	B-10	Q: “Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow” is listed as 100% FAS for each of the seven units.  Please confirm that the FAS sluice system is entirely close-looped and does not require any makeup water.

A:

3	N	16	B-10	Q: Measurement units were not marked for “Average sluice water flow rate” for SE Unit 1.  Please confirm that the correct measurement unit is gpm.

A:

4	N	18	B-12	Q: “Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow” is listed as 100% BAS for each of the seven units.  Please confirm that the BAS sluice system is entirely close-looped and does not require any makeup water.

A:

5	N	22	B-17	Q: The sources of FGD slurry water are listed as 90% FGDB and 10% RECYC-FAS.  Please confirm that the 10% contribution is from the effluent from the WWT-1 ash pond.

The amount of slurry blowdown returned to the absorber is 897 gpm and the total slurry blowdown is 900 gpm.  That is less than 1% loss.  What is the rest of the slurry water loss attributed to (“RECYC-FAS” contribution is 10%)?

A:

6	N	22	B-17	Q: The “Typical range of percent solids of slurry blowdown exiting the absorber” is listed as 0 to 6 %.  This seems like a low range, particularly if the percent solids decreases to zero.  Please confirm the percent solids range.

A:

7	N	23	B-18	Q: In response to the question: “Indicate system parameters used to control the FGD slurry blowdown”, the plant responded, “None – recirculated without regard to constituents”.  Please explain this response.

A:

8	N	28	B-19	Q: Question 28 refers to gypsum-related wastewaters other than those generated directly from the FGD system.  The question refers to wastewaters such as gypsum stack runoff and gypsum washwater.  Did the plant generate this type of wastewater in 2006?  If so, please provide the volume and frequency.

A:

9	N	35	B-24	Q: Please confirm that the plant does not operate a once-through cooling water system and that the plant typed a response to the average amount of wastewater generated from the once-through cooling water system in error (500 gpm).

A:

10	N	43	B-26	Q: Outfalls 02, 03A, 03D, 03G, 03I, 03L, 03P, and 04 – 08 are not listed in Table 14 or the process diagrams.  Did they discharge in 2006?

A:

11	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that pH adjustment occurs within (as part of) the ash pond and not within a separate tank/pond as indicated in the diagram.

A:

12	N	47	B-28	Q: Regarding the Low Volume Waste Sump shown in Diagram 5-1, please confirm that no wastewater treatment occurs in this sump.

A:

13	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please provide the flow rate breakout for “RECYC – FAS/BAS” (9,500 gpm) for the following: BAS, FAS, and PMRS.  Is the flow rate breakout approximately 7,600, 1,425, and 475 gpm, respectively?  Is this effluent continuous from the WWT-1 ash pond at 24 hpd and 365 dpy?

A:

14	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-2 (Diagram 5-2), please confirm that pH adjustment and chemical precipitation occur within the settling pond and not within separate vessels as shown on the diagram?  What chemicals are typically added to the settling pond for chemical precipitation?

A:

15	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-4, Diagram 5-4 shows the stream, “LPR”, entering the FGD system; however, no flow rate is provided.  Please explain the use of this stream.

A:

16	N	51	B-33	Q: For WWT-1, the “Average Dose Concentration” of sodium hydroxide is listed as “As necessary to raise pH to at least 6.0”.  As requested in EPA’s email to UWAG on 7/11/07, please provide the concentration of the active ingredient added (i.e., the amount of active ingredient contained in the chemical product).

A:

17	N	52	B-34	Q: The WWT-2 settling pond effluent flow rates are inconsistent in Table 19 for WWT-1 and WWT-2 (17 gpm for 12 hpd versus 20 gpm for 8 hpd).  Please explain the difference.  Which flow rate is more accurate?

A:

18	N	52	B-34	Q: The WWT-4 settling pond effluent flow rates are inconsistent in Table 19 for WWT-1 and in the Comments page (1,000 gpm for 1 hpd versus 2,400 gpm for 1 hpd).  Please explain the difference.  Which flow rate is more accurate?

A:

19	N	53	B-35	Q: Please confirm the costs provided for WWT-3.  Please note that this question has been written vaguely to avoid the electronic transfer of CBI.  We would be happy to elaborate on a telephone call.

A:


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75708-75711]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30461]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29521; File No. 812-13780]

American United Life Insurance Company, et al.; Notice of
Application

November 30, 2010.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of Application for an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (``1940 Act''), the
substitution of securities.

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

Applicants: American United Life Insurance Company (``AUL''), AUL
American Unit Trust (``AUL Account''). AUL and the AUL Account are
together referred to herein as the ``Applicants.''

Summary of Application: The AUL account is used to fund variable
annuity contracts issued by AUL (``Contracts''). Applicants request an
order to permit the substitution of units issued by the Vanguard
Variable Insurance Fund Small Company Growth Portfolio (the
``Substituted Portfolio'' or ``VVIF''), for units issued by the
Vanguard Explorer Fund (the ``Removed Portfolio'' or ``VEF''), a fund
currently available as an investment option under certain Contracts.

Filing Date: The application was filed on June 8, 2010 and amended and
restated applications were filed on September 2, and October 15, 2010.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the Application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on
December 27, 2010 and should be accompanied by proof of service on
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants: c/o Richard M. Ellery,
Esq., American United Life Insurance Company, One American Square,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282. Copies to: Frederick H. Sherley, Esq.,
Dechert LLP, 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC 28202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Scott, Senior Counsel, Office
of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, SEC, at (202)
551-6763, or Zandra Bailes, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application; the complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or obtained for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of
the Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by calling:
(202) 551-8090.
    Applicants' Representations:
    1. AUL is an Indiana stock insurance company. AUL is the depositor
and sponsor of the AUL Account, a separate investment account
established under Indiana law.
    2. The AUL Account is used to fund variable annuity contracts
issued by AUL (each, a ``Contract'').\1\ The income, gains or losses of
the AUL Account are credited to or charged against the assets of the
AUL Account without regard to other income, gains or losses of AUL. AUL
owns the assets in the AUL Account and is required to maintain
sufficient assets in the AUL Account to meet all AUL Account
obligations under the Contracts. AUL may transfer to its general
account assets that exceed anticipated obligations of the AUL Account.
All obligations arising under the Contracts are general corporate

obligations of AUL. AUL serves as sponsor and depositor of the AUL
Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The registration statement relating to these contracts is
incorporated by reference into the application, to the extent
necessary to support and supplement the descriptions and
representations set forth in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The AUL Account is currently divided into 419 sub-accounts
referred to as Investment Accounts. Each Investment Account invests
exclusively in shares of one of the mutual fund portfolios offered by
the fund companies with whom AUL has executed agreements so that the
portfolios of those fund companies are eligible to be selected by a
Contract Owner as an investment option under a Contract issued by AUL.
Contributions may be allocated to one or more Investment Accounts
available under a Contract. Not all of the Investment Accounts may be
available under a particular Contract and some of the Investment
Accounts are not available for certain types of Contracts. Each
Contract permits allocations of value to available fixed and variable
subaccounts; each variable subaccount invests in a specific investment
portfolio of an underlying mutual fund. The group variable annuity
Contracts may allow ongoing contributions that can vary in amount and
frequency. All of the Contracts provide for the accumulation of values
on a variable basis, a fixed basis or both. The Contracts also provide
several options for fixed annuity payments to begin on a future date.
    4. The AUL Account does not impose any limitations on the number of
transfers between Investment Accounts available under a Contract or
between Investment Accounts and the Fixed Interest Account (an
investment option under the Contracts to which contributions may be
allocated for accumulation at rates guaranteed by AUL) or impose
charges on transfers. Under certain circumstances, amounts transferred
from the Fixed Interest Account to an Investment Account during any
given year may not exceed 20% of the Fixed Interest Account's value as
of the beginning of that year. AUL reserves the right, however, at a
future date, to impose a different minimum or maximum transfer amount,
to assess transfer charges, to change the limit on remaining balances,
to limit the number and frequency of transfers, and to suspend the
transfer privilege or the telephone authorization, interactive voice
response, or Internet based transfers.
    5. Each Contract reserves the right, upon notice to Contract Owners
and in compliance with applicable law, to add, combine or remove
subaccounts, or to withdraw assets from one subaccount and put them
into another subaccount. Each Contract's prospectus provides that
Applicants may add, remove or combine subaccounts or withdraw assets
relating to a Contract from one subaccount and put them into another.
    6. Applicants propose to substitute units of the VEF with units of
the VVIF (the proposed ``Substitution''). Applicants state that no
material differences exist between VEF and VVIF from the perspective of
the Contract Owners. As represented in the application, and as the
table below indicates, the investment objectives and primary risks of
the two portfolios are the same, and the investment strategies are
substantially similar. Further, the expense ratio of the VVIF is lower
than the expense ratio of VEF and the one, five and ten year
performance of the VVIF for the period ended December 31, 2009 is
better than that of the VEF over the same period. While VEF has seven
investment advisers and VVIF has two, VVIF's advisers are both advisers
of VEF.
    7. Applicants submit that the foregoing demonstrates that no
material difference exists between the Removed Portfolio and the
Substituted Portfolio; both invest in small company stocks using a
growth strategy and share the same primary risks. Accordingly,
Applicants believe that the Contract Owners have a reasonable
continuity in their investment expectation.
    8. As of July 31, 2010, VEF had assets of approximately
$6,231,000,000. As of July 31, 2010, VVIF had assets of approximately
$601,000,000. Applicants believe that both VEF and VVIF hold sufficient
assets such that the Substitution should be immaterial to portfolio
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The application represents that the information in this
table was transcribed as it appears in the registration statement
dated February 24, 2010, File Nos. 811-01530, 002-27203. That
registration statement was incorporated by reference into the
application to the extent necessary to support and supplement the
descriptions and representations set forth in the application.
    \3\ The application represents that the information in this
table was transcribed as it appears in the registration statement
dated April 30, 2010, File Nos. 811-05962, 033-32216. That
registration statement was incorporated by reference into the
application to the extent necessary to support and supplement the
descriptions and representations set forth in the application.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Removed portfolio \2\              Substituted portfolio \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Explorer Fund (cusip-           Vanguard Variable Insurance
 921926101).                              Fund Small Company Growth
                                          Portfolio (cusip-921925889).
Objective: Long-term capital             Objective: Long-term capital
 appreciation.                            appreciation.
Principal Investment Strategies:.......  Principal Investment
The Fund invests mainly in the stocks     Strategies: The portfolio
 of small companies. These companies      invests at least 80% of its
 tend to be unseasoned but are            assets primarily in common
 considered by the Fund's advisors to     stocks of smaller companies.
 have superior growth potential. Also,    These companies tend to be
 these companies often provide little     unseasoned but are considered
 or no dividend income. The Fund uses     by the Portfolio's advisors to
 multiple investment advisors.            have superior growth
                                          potential. Also, these
                                          companies often provide little
                                          or no dividend income. The
                                          Portfolio's 80% policy may be
                                          changed only upon 60 days'
                                          notice to shareholders. The
                                          Portfolio uses multiple
                                          investment advisors.
Primary Risks: An investment in the      Primary Risks: An investment in
 Fund could lose money over short or      the Portfolio could lose money
 even long periods. You should expect     over short or even long
 the Fund's share price and total         periods. You should expect the
 return to fluctuate within a wide        Portfolio's share price and
 range, like the fluctuations of the      total return to fluctuate
 overall stock market. The Fund's         within a wide range, like the
 performance could be hurt by:            fluctuations of the overall
                                          stock market. The Portfolio's
                                          performance could be hurt by:
     Stock market risk, which        Stock market risk,
     is the chance that stock prices         which is the chance that
     overall will decline. Stock             stock prices overall will
     markets tend to move in cycles,         decline. Stock markets tend
     with periods of rising prices and       to move in cycles, with
     periods of falling prices.              periods of rising prices
                                             and periods of falling
                                             prices.
     Investment style risk,          Investment style
     which is the chance that returns        risk, which is the chance
     from small-capitalization growth        that returns from small-
     stocks will trail returns from the      capitalization growth
     overall stock market.                   stocks will trail returns
     Historically, small-cap stocks          from the overall stock
     have been more volatile in price        market. Historically, small-
     than the large-cap stocks that          cap stocks have been more
     dominate the overall market, and        volatile in price than the
     they often perform quite                large-cap stocks that
     differently.                            dominate the overall
                                             market, and they often
                                             perform quite differently.

     Manager risk, which is the      Manager risk, which
     chance that poor security               is the chance that poor
     selection or focus on securities        security selection or focus
     in a particular sector, category,       on securities in a
     or group of companies will cause        particular sector,
     the Fund to underperform relevant       category, or group of
     benchmarks or other funds with a        companies will cause the
     similar investment objective.           Portfolio to underperform
                                             relevant benchmarks or
                                             other funds with a similar
                                             investment objective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total annual fund oTotal annual fund operating expenses: 0.40%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual total returns for periods ended December
                   Average annual total returns for periods ended December
                                           31, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         1 Year            5 Years           10 Years             1 Year            5 Years           10 Years
         36.21%              0.44%              3.35%             39.38%              0.50%              4.47%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Among the reasons for the proposed Substitution, Applicants
state that the proposed Substitution will strengthen the fund offerings
within the Contracts' fund lineup. Applicants expect the proposed
Substitution to provide benefits to the Contract Owners including a
better performing, lower cost portfolio. The application states that
Vanguard has been consulted about the proposed Substitution and has no
objection to it.
    10. Moreover, Applicants state that after the proposed
Substitution, Contract Owners will continue to be able to select among
portfolios with a full range of investment objectives, investments
strategies and risks.
    11. In sum, the Applicants also have concluded that the Substituted
Portfolio is better suited than the Removed Portfolio to serve as the
underlying portfolio for the AUL Account as an operational and
procedural matter; the Substituted Portfolio is designed to serve as an
investment vehicle for insurance company separate accounts.
    12. In comparing expense ratios, the application states that as set
forth in the Prospectuses of the Substituted Portfolio and Removed
Portfolio, the Substituted Portfolio has a lower total expense ratio
(0.40%) than the Removed Portfolio (0.54%). Neither the Substituted
Portfolio nor the Removed Portfolio pays fees pursuant to Rule 12b-1 of
the Act.
    13. The chart below, as included in the application, provides a
comparison of expenses:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                             Management           12b-1        Other expenses       operating
                                            expenses  (in   distribution fee    (in percent)      expenses  (in
                                              percent)                                              percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removed Portfolio, Investor Shares......              0.50              None              0.04              0.54
Substituted Portfolio...................              0.35              None              0.05              0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In addition to expenses, Applicants state in the application
that relative performance is a reason for the substitution. According
to Vanguard, the Substituted Portfolio has outperformed the Removed
Portfolio over the last one, five and ten year periods for the period
ended December 31, 2009. In these time periods, respectively, the
Substituted Portfolio has returned 39.38%, 0.50% and 4.47%, while the
Removed Portfolio has returned 36.21%, 0.44% and 3.35%, each before
taxes.
    15. The proposed Substitution will take place at each Portfolio's
relative net asset values determined on the date of the Substitution in
accordance with Section 22 of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder
with no change in the amount of any Contract Owner's cash value of his
or her investment in any of the subaccounts. Accordingly, there will be
no financial impact on any Contract Owner. The Substitution will be
effected by having the subaccount that invests in the Removed Portfolio
redeem its shares at the net asset value calculated on the date of the
Substitution and purchase shares of the Substituted Portfolio at the
net asset value calculated on the same date.
    16. The application notes that the Substitution will be described
in detail in a written notice mailed to Contract Owners. The notice
will inform Contract Owners of Applicants' intent to implement the
Substitution and describe the Substitution, the reasons for engaging in
the proposed Substitution and how the Substitution will be implemented.
The notice will be mailed to all Contract Owners at least 30 days prior
to the Substitution and will inform affected Contract Owners that they
may transfer assets from the subaccount investing in the Removed
Portfolio at any time after receipt of the notice, and from the
subaccount investing in the Substituted Portfolio for 30 days after the
Substitution, to any subaccounts investing in other portfolios
available under their respective Contracts without the imposition of
any transfer charge or limitation and without diminishing the number of
free transfers that may be made in a given contract year. A supplement
will be filed with the Commission for the current prospectus containing
the information to be included in the notice.
    17. Applicants state further that each Contract Owner will be
provided a prospectus for the Substituted Portfolio. Within five
business days after the Substitution, Applicants will send each
affected Contract Owner written confirmation that the Substitution has
occurred.
    18. The application also indicates that:
    (a) Applicants will pay all expenses and transaction costs of the
Substitution, including all legal, accounting and allocated brokerage
expenses relating to the Substitution;
    (b) that no costs will be borne by the Contract Owners;
    (c) that affected Contract Owners will not incur any fees or
charges as a result of the Substitution, nor will their rights or the
obligations of Applicants under the Contracts be altered in any way.
    19. Applicants state that the proposed Substitution will not cause
the fees and charges under the Contracts currently being paid by
Contract Owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the
Substitution. The Substitution will

have no adverse tax consequences to Contract Owners and will in no way
alter the tax benefits to Contract Owners.

Applicants' Legal Analysis:

    1. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act provides that it shall be unlawful
for any depositor or trustee of a registered unit investment trust
holding the security of a single issuer to substitute another security
for such security unless the Commission shall have approved such
substitution; and the Commission shall issue an order approving such
substitution if the evidence establishes that it is consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policies and provisions of the 1940 Act. Section 26(c) protects the
expectation of investors that the unit investment trust will accumulate
shares of a particular issuer and is intended to insure that
unnecessary or burdensome sales loads, additional reinvestment costs or
other charges will not be incurred due to unapproved substitutions of
securities.
    2. The proposed Substitution of shares held by the AUL Account, as
described above, may be deemed to involve a substitution of securities
within the meaning of Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act. The Applicants
therefore request an order from the Commission pursuant to Section
26(c) approving the proposed Substitution.
    3. The investment objective and primary risks of the Substituted
Portfolio are the same as that of the Removed Portfolio and the
investment strategies of the two are nearly identical; thus, Contract
Owners will have reasonable continuity in investment expectations.
Accordingly, the Substituted Portfolio is an appropriate investment
vehicle for those Contract Owners who have Contract values allocated to
the Removed Portfolio. Further, the Substituted Portfolio has lower
expenses and better historical performance than that of the Removed
Portfolio.
    4. In connection with assets held under the Contracts affected by
the Substitution, Applicants will not receive for three (3) years from
the date of substitution any direct or indirect benefits from the
Substituted Portfolio, its advisors or underwriters (or their
affiliates) at a rate higher than that which they had received from the
Removed Portfolio, its advisors or underwriters (or their affiliates)
including but without limitation, 12b-1, shareholder service,
administration or other service fees, revenue sharing or other
arrangements.
    5. Applicants represent and warrant that the Substitution and the
selection of the Substituted Portfolio were not motivated by any
financial consideration paid or to be paid to AUL or its affiliates by
the Substituted Portfolio, its advisors or underwriters or their
respective affiliates.
    6. The Substitution will not result in the type of costly forced
redemption that Section 26(c) was intended to guard against because the
Contract Owner will continue to have the same type of investment
choice, with better potential returns and lower expenses and will not
otherwise have any incentive to redeem their shares or terminate their
Contracts.
    7. The purposes, terms and conditions of the proposed Substitution
are consistent with the protection of investors, and the principles and
purposes of Section 26(c), and do not entail any of the abuses that
Section 26(c) is designed to prevent.
    (a) The Substituted Portfolio has better historical performance
than the Removed Portfolio.
    (b) The current total annual operating expenses and management fee
of the Substituted Portfolio are lower than those of the Removed
Portfolio.
    (c) The Substituted Portfolio is an appropriate portfolio to move
Contract Owners' values currently allocated to the Removed Portfolio
because the portfolios have the same objectives and risks and very
similar strategies.
    (d) All costs of the Substitution, including any allocated
brokerage costs, will be borne by Applicants and will not be borne by
Contract Owners. No charges will be assessed to effect the
Substitution.
    (e) The Substitution will be at the net asset value of the
respective portfolio shares without the imposition of any transfer or
similar charge and with no change in the amount of any Contract Owners'
Contract values.
    (f) The Substitution will not cause the fees and charges under the
Contracts currently being paid by the Contract Owners to be greater
after the Substitution than before the Substitution and will result in
Contract Owners Contract values being moved to a portfolio with lower
current total annual operating expenses.
    (g) Notice of the proposed Substitution will be mailed to all
Contract Owners at least 30 days prior to the Substitution, All
Contract Owners will have an opportunity at any time after receipt of
the notice of the Substitution and for 30 days after the Substitution
to transfer Contract account value affected by the Substitution to
other available subaccounts without the imposition of any transfer
charge or limitation and without being counted as one of the Contract
Owner's free transfers in a contract year.
    (h) Within five business days after the Substitution, Applicants
will send to their affected Contract Owners a written confirmation that
the Substitution has occurred.
    (i) The Substitution will, in no way, alter the terms of the
Contracts or the obligations of Applicants under them.
    (j) The Substitution will have no adverse tax consequences to
Contract Owners and will, in no way, alter the tax benefits to Contract
Owners.

Conclusion

    Applicants assert that, for the reasons summarized above, the
Commission should grant the requested order approving the Proposed
Substitution.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30461 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58560-58562]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-1-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Palmyra to Ogden A-Line
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Palmyra to Ogden A-Line
Project involving abandonment by sale of facilities by Northern Natural
Gas

Company (Northern) to DKM Enterprises, LLC (DKM) in Otoe and Cass
counties in Nebraska, and Mills, Pottawattamie, Cass, Audubon, Guthrie,
Greene, and Boone counties in Iowa. The Commission will use this EA in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the
Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on December 14, 2018.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on October 3, 2018, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP19-1-000 to ensure they are considered as part
of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-1-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington,
DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northern proposes to isolate and abandon by sale to DKM
approximately 146.6 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline on Northern's
M580A and M530A system (collectively referred to as the ``A-line'')
from Palmyra, Nebraska, to Ogden, Iowa. Northern indicates that DKM
intends to salvage the abandoned pipeline.
    To abandon the pipeline, Northern would disconnect and cap the A-
line at five interconnections where it is linked to other system
facilities. Ground disturbances would be limited to one location in
Otoe County, Nebraska, and four locations in Mills, Guthrie, and Boone
(two locations) counties, Iowa, where the A-line would be disconnected
from Northern's existing pipeline system.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    In total, the Project would affect approximately 28.8 acres of
land, which includes 7.1 acres of temporary workspace, 21.6 acres of
additional temporary workspace, and 0.1 acre for one access road.
Generally, Northern would use 100-foot-wide workspaces centered over
the existing A-line right-of-way at each interconnect.

The EA Process

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the abandonment of project facilities under these general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission.

To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address your
comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices
(SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government
agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's
potential effects on historic properties.\4\ Commission staff will
define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in
consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads).
The EA for this project will document findings on the impacts on
historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under
section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined
in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way
grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes,
or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities,
and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are
sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP19-1). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: November 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25286 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 2. OMB control number b. None a 2040 0197 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Assessment and Protection ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1816.03 9. Keywords Environmental protection, Water pollution control, Source Water Protection, Source Water Assessment, Measures 10. Abstract This ICR addresses voluntary reporting activities related to the status of source water assessment completion in states, the most prevalent and most threatening sources of contamination, overall risk to source waters, and progress toward substantial implementation of prevention strategies for all community water system source water areas. EPA will use the requested information to assess progress toward meeting Agency strategic goals.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 52 b. Total annual responses 52 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100 % c. Total hours requested 4,212 d. Current OMB inventory 2,608,787 e. Difference ( 2,604,575) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change ( 2,604,575) 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 1,122 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 1,122 d. Current OMB inventory $ 7,102 e. Difference ($ 5,980) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change ($ 5,980) 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. P_ Program evaluation f. _ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Roy Simon Phone: ( 202) 564 3868 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

EPA's Burden estimate and the valid OMB control number ( item " g") are not provided on collection forms, as no forms are required to be completed by the respondents. EPA's expectations for the collection, including the Agency's need for and use of the information, are described in the State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance.

Signature of Program Official Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Office of Water Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43506-43508]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0696; Product Identifier 2018-SW-019-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH and
Eurocopter Canada Ltd.) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-
26-02 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S,
BO-105LS A-1, and BO-105LS A-3 helicopters; and Eurocopter Canada Ltd.
Model BO-105LS A-3 helicopters. AD 97-26-02 requires a repetitive
visual inspection for cracks in the ribbed area of the main rotor (M/R)
mast flange (flange), and depending on the outcome, replacing the M/R
mast. Since the FAA issued AD 97-26-02, it has been determined that a
certain reinforced M/R mast is not affected by this unsafe condition.
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 97-26-02 and
remove the reinforced M/R mast from the applicability. The actions of
this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0696; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, the Transport Canada AD, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments received.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as

CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 97-26-02, Amendment 39-10245 (62 FR 65749,
December 16, 1997) (``AD 97-26-02'') for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH
Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105LS A-1, and BO-105LS A-3 helicopters and
Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO-105LS A-3 helicopters. AD 97-26-02
requires a repetitive visual inspection for cracks in the ribbed area
of the M/R flange and replacing the M/R mast if there is a crack. AD
97-26-02 was prompted by Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) AD 97-275, effective
September 25, 1997, issued by LBA, which is the airworthiness authority
for Germany, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland
GmbH Model BO 105 helicopters; and Transport Canada AD No. CF-97-18,
dated September 30, 1997 (Transport Canada AD CF-97-18), issued by
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to
correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO 105LS
A-3 helicopters. The LBA and Transport Canada ADs required an immediate
and repetitive visual inspection for a crack in the flange area after
an M/R mast was found to have cracks of critical magnitude. The actions
of AD 97-26-02 are intended to detect cracks in the flange, which could
result in failure of the flange and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions Since AD 97-26-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 97-26-02, EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No.
2018-0056, dated March 14, 2018, to correct an unsafe condition for
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (previously Eurocopter Deutschland
GmbH, Eurocopter Hubschrauber GmbH, Messerschmitt-B[ouml]lkow-Blohm
GmbH, Eurocopter Canada Ltd, Messerschmitt-B[ouml]lkow-Blohm Helicopter
Canada Ltd.) Model BO105 A, BO105 C, BO105 D, BO105 LS A-1, BO105 LS A-
3 and BO105 S helicopters. The EASA AD advises of the transfer of type
certificate responsibility of Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO-105LS A-3
helicopters to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH and the determination that
reinforced M/R mast part number (P/N) 4639 305 095 of M/R mast assembly
P/N 4639 205 017, is not affected by this unsafe condition. The EASA AD
retains the repetitive visual inspection requirements but only for
helicopters with M/R mast P/N 4619 305 032 of M/R mast assembly P/N
4638 205 005, and M/R mast P/N 4639 305 002 of M/R mast assembly P/N
4639 205 017. With the transfer of type certificate responsibility of
Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO-105LS A-3 helicopters, Transport Canada
issued Transport Canada AD No. CF-1997-18R1, dated March 12, 2018, to
cancel Transport Canada AD CF-97-18.
    Also, since the FAA issued AD 97-26-02, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH
changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH. This proposed
AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain
service documentation.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the
same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Alert Service Bulletin
No. ASB-BO 105-10-110, dated August 27, 1997. This service information
specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the flange
for cracks.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, before further flight and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service,
visually inspecting the flange in the ribbed area for a crack using a
5-power or higher magnifying glass. If a crack exists, this proposed AD
would require removing from service the M/R mast and replacing it with
an airworthy M/R mast.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters if there is a
crack in the flange, whereas this proposed AD would require replacing
the M/R mast instead. Also, the EASA AD applies to Model BO105 D and
BO105 S helicopters; the proposed AD does not as these model
helicopters are not type-certificated in the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 21 helicopters
of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the
following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs
are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Inspecting the flange would take about 0.25 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $441 for the U.S. fleet per
inspection cycle.
    Replacing the M/R mast would take about 8 work-hours and parts
would cost about $30,000 for an estimated cost of $30,680 per
helicopter.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-26-02, Amendment 39-10245
(62 FR 65749, December 16, 1997); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH and Eurocopter Canada Ltd.):
Docket No. FAA-2020-0696; Product Identifier 2018-SW-019-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model BO-
105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS A-1, and BO-105LS A-3 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with a main rotor (M/R) mast part
number (P/N) 4619 305 032 of M/R mast assembly P/N 4638 205 005, or
M/R mast P/N 4639 305 002 of M/R mast assembly P/N 4639 205 017.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:  M/R mast assembly P/N 4639
205 017 may also contain reinforced M/R mast P/N 4639 305 095, which
is not affected by this AD.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as cracks in the M/R mast
flange (flange). This condition could result in failure of the
flange and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 97-26-02, Amendment 39-10245 (62 FR 65749,
December 16, 1997).

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 31, 2020.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 100 hours time-in-service, visually inspect the flange in the
ribbed area for cracks using a 5-power or higher magnifying glass in
accordance with paragraphs 2.A.1. and 2.A.2. of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Alert Service Bulletin
No. ASB-BO 105-10-110, dated August 27, 1997.
    (2) If there is a crack, remove from service the cracked M/R
mast and replace it with an airworthy M/R mast.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD No.
2018-0056, dated March 14, 2018; and Transport Canada AD No. CF-
1997-18R1, dated March 12, 2018. You may view the EASA and Transport
Canada ADs on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD
Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor
Mast/Swashplate.

    Issued on July 13, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2020-15352 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P