UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 9, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-25037

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Polet Airlines	 (“Polet”)				 		Date Filed:  June 8,
2006

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 40109(g) to permit the
applicant to operate one, one-way, all-cargo charter flight, using its
AN-124-100 aircraft, carrying outsized cargo on behalf of Air Mobility
Command (AMC), from Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to Hickam Field, Hawaii,
with a technical stop for refueling in Miramar Naval Air Station,
California, during the period June 12 – 13, 2006.  The flight would
carry seven military vehicles and four trailers.  The applicant asserts
that the vehicles are urgently required for use in Hawaii; that the
cargo is too large for transportation on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that
the nature of the cargo requires the use of the AN-124 ramp loading
system.

Applicant representative:  Lester M. Bridgeman,<PHONE_NUMBER>		   DOT
analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Polet served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 USC § 40109(g), we may authorize a
foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 USC § 41102; that all possible
efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers; and that
the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship to the
traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning emergency
transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                             		     Action date: June 9,
2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 12, 2006, through June 13,
2006.

Basis for approval:  We are granting Polet’s request to operate the
proposed one-way flight (described above), on behalf of Air Mobility
Command.  We found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49
USC § 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type, and that the
grant was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we were
persuaded that the urgent requirement for the vehicles in Hawaii; the
fact that the cargo requires the use of the AN-124 ramp loading system;
and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo constituted an emergency
not arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority would prevent
unreasonable hardship to Air Mobility Command.  Finally, we found that
the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions (attached) and to the condition that the
applicant must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the
authorized operation.

Action taken by:        				Michael W. Reynolds

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

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

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                       		       ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37301-37303]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55993; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Make Permanent a Pilot Program Relating to Split Price Priority in Open
Outcry

June 29, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on June 21, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Phlx. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule

change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder, which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Phlx proposes to adopt, on a permanent basis, a rule that is
currently subject to a pilot program (``pilot'') as set forth in Rule
1014(g)(i)(B) relating to priority on split-price transactions in open
outcry. The pilot currently affords priority to a member with an order
for at least 100 contracts \5\ who buys (sells) at least 50 contracts
at a particular price to have priority over all others in purchasing
(selling) up to an equivalent number of contracts of the same order at
the next lower (higher) price without being required to yield priority,
including to existing customer interest in the limit order book. The
pilot also establishes priority for in-crowd participants in split
price transactions represented in open outcry over the quotations of
participants that are not located in the crowd (i.e., out-of-crowd
Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \6\ and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders (``RSQTs'') \7\) even where the market has a bid/ask
differential of one minimum trading increment.\8\ The current pilot is
scheduled to expire June 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders for a size of less than 100 contracts are not
affected by the current pilot and would not be affected by this
proposed rule change.
    \6\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options
to which such SQT is assigned. (AUTOM is Phlx's Automated Options
Market.) An SQT may only submit such quotations while such SQT is
physically present on the floor of the Exchange. See Phlx Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \7\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Phlx Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \8\ Generally, all options on stocks, indexes, and exchange
traded funds quoting in decimals at $3.00 or higher have a minimum
increment of $.10, and those quoting in decimals under $3.00 have a
minimum increment of $.05. See Phlx Rule 1034(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Phlx Web
site (http://www.phlx.com), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish, on a
permanent basis, Exchange Rule 1014(g)(i)(C), concerning priority in
split-price transactions, which by virtue of their size and the need to
execute them at multiple prices, may be difficult to execute without a
limited exception to current Exchange priority rules, as described
below. The pilot is scheduled to expire June 30, 2007.
    The pilot was originally adopted in June 2005,\9\ and subsequently
extended in December 2005.\10\ In May 2006, the pilot was expanded to
include priority for in-crowd participants in both trades of the split
price transaction where there is a minimum trading increment market,
but only over RSQTs and out-of-crowd SQTs in that circumstance.\11\
Such priority applies only when the bid and/or offer, as applicable,
represent the quotation of an out-of-crowd SQT or RSQT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51820 (June 10,
2005), 70 FR 35759 (June 21, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-28).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53021 (December 23,
2005), 70 FR 77435 (December 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-86).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53874 (May 25,
2006), 71 FR 32171 (June 2, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rule is applicable to equity options (including options
overlying Exchange Traded Fund Shares (``ETFs'')).\12\ The rule
operates in two ways. First, it permits a member with an order for at
least 100 contracts \13\ who buys (sells) at least 50 contracts at a
particular price to have priority over all others in purchasing
(selling) up to an equivalent number of contracts of the same order at
the next lower (higher) price without being required to yield priority,
including to existing customer interest in the limit order book. Absent
this rule, such orders would be required to yield priority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In a separate filing, the Exchange has requested approval
of an amendment that would standardize the rule such that it would
apply equally to options on equities, ETFs and index options. See
SR-Phlx-2007-27.
    \13\ Orders for a size of less than 100 contracts are not
affected by the current pilot and would not be affected by this
proposed rule change.
    \14\ See e.g. Phlx Rule 119(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, where the market is $.25--$.35, a Floor Broker
representing an order to purchase 100 contracts that executes a
purchase of 50 of those contracts at a price of $.30 has priority over
all market participants to purchase the remaining 50 contracts in the
order at $.25. Two trades would be reported to the tape, one a purchase
of 50 contracts at $.30, and the other a purchase of 50 contracts at
$.25. The effect to that Floor Broker's customer would be a net
purchase price of $.275 for 100 contracts.
    Second, as stated above, the rule contemplates that a member who
purchases (sells) 50 or more option contracts of a particular series at
a particular price or prices has priority at the next lower (higher)
price in purchasing (selling) up to the equivalent number of option
contracts of the same series that he purchased (sold) at the higher
(lower) price or prices. The pilot, respecting split price
transactions, also affords priority to members physically located in
the crowd even where the market has a bid/ask differential of one
minimum trading increment. The Exchange believes that this provision
should enable it to compete for order flow in situations where Floor
Brokers seek split price executions in open outcry when the market
consists of RSQT quotations and/or SQT quotations where the SQT is
located out of that trading crowd with a bid/ask differential of one
minimum trading increment, and the bid and/or offer represent
quotations of members physically located out of the crowd.
    For example, assume a Floor Broker represents an order to purchase
100 contracts in a series where the market is $.25 bid, $.30 offer, and
both the bid and offer represent quotations submitted by out-of-crowd
SQTs \15\ or RSQTs. Under the proposal, the Floor Broker and the
contra-side participant in the trading crowd would be afforded priority
over the out-of-crowd SQT or RSQT at both $.25 and $.30, because the
bid/ask differential is one minimum

trading increment ($.05). This would enable the Floor Broker to execute
a split-price order at a net price ($.275) that improves the market.
The effect (and ultimate benefit) to that Floor Broker's customer would
be a net purchase price of $.275 for 100 contracts. This provision only
applies regarding quotations submitted by out-of-crowd SQTs and RSQTs,
and thus would not operate to afford priority over, for example,
customer or broker-dealer orders or in-crowd SQT quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The specialist and/or SQTs participating in a trading crowd
may, in response to a verbal request for a market by a floor broker,
state a bid or offer that is different than their electronically
submitted bid or offer, provided that such stated bid or offer is
not inferior to such electronically submitted bid or offer. See Phlx
Rule 1014, Commentary .05(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, in situations where the market has a
bid/ask differential of one minimum trading increment, it is
potentially difficult for the Floor Broker to achieve price improvement
for the Floor Broker's customer on the Phlx. Instead, the order might
trade at another exchange that has no impediments, i.e., rules that
afford priority to in-crowd participants over out-of-crowd participants
generally, regardless of split price priority.
    The Exchange is seeking permanent approval of the pilot in order to
ensure continuity of the rule and to eliminate the need for continued
pilot extensions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, enabling Floor Brokers representing split price orders in
open outcry to provide split-price executions at improved prices on
behalf of customers by establishing a limited priority rule regarding
split-price transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\18\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission
believes that implementing the pilot program on a permanent basis does
not present any new issues, and waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange's split-price priority rule in its
present form to remain in effect without interruption. For these
reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
effective upon filing with the Commission.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20 \ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form: (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-44 and should be
submitted on or before July 30, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13157 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71993-71994]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28471]

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

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: ER15-212-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2900R1 Substitute
Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-232-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2415R3 Substitute
Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA & NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-466-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
11-24 City of Alexandria to Schedules 7,8,9 to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-467-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
11-24 SA 2414 ATC-Dairyland T-T 1st Rev. to be effective 10/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-468-000.
    Applicants: Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Bayonne Plant Holding,
L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-469-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NCMPA1
RS 318 Amendment (2014) to be effective 12/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141124-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM14-3-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New
Orleans, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Description: Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to Protests of
Entergy Services, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 11/21/14.

    Accession Number: 20141121-5265.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/14.

    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: November 24, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28471 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9039]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3317-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Missouri (FEMA-3317-EM), dated February 3, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective February 5, 2011.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-3429 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22775-22776]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13124-000]

Copper Valley Electric Association; Notice of Scoping Meeting and
Soliciting Scoping Comments for an Oirginal Application for License

April 23, 2010.
    a. Type of Application: Original License Application.
    b. Project No.: 13124-000.
    c. Applicant: Copper Valley Electric Association.
    d. Name of Project: Allison Lake Project.
    e. Location: on the south side of Port Valdez, on the shore
opposite from the community of Valdez, Alaska, near the Alyeska Marine
Terminal and the terminus of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) in
Township 9 South, Range 6 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant Contact: Robert A. Wilkinson, CEO, Copper Valley
Electric Association, P.O. Box 45, Mile 187 Glenn Highway, Glennallen,
Alaska 99588,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington, phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 12, 2010.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    j. The proposed project would consist of: (1) A 70-foot high, 17-
foot-wide rock-filled embankment dam; (2) a 12,500-acre-foot storage
reservoir; (3) 9,700-foot-long, 33-inch-diameter-steel pipeline; (4) a
40-foot-high, 40-foot wide powerhouse; (5) a 4,000 kilowatt horizontal
pelton turbine; (6) a 150-foot-long tailrace channel; (7) a switchyard;
(8) 2.5-mile-long transmission line; and (9) all appurtenant
structures.
    k. Scoping Process: Copper Valley Electric Association (Copper
Valley) has requested use of the Commission's alternative licensing
procedures (ALP). To date, the Commission has not acted upon that
request. Under the ALP, Copper Valley will prepare a Preliminary Draft
Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and license application for the Allison
Lake Project.
    Copper Valley expects to file, with the Commission, the PDEA and
the license application for the Allison Lake Project by July 30, 2010.
Although Copper Valley's intent is to prepare a PDEA, there is the
possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be
required. Nevertheless, this meeting will satisfy the scoping
requirements, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the
Commission.
    The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the opportunity to
participate in the upcoming scoping meetings identified below, and to
solicit your scoping comments.

Scoping Meetings

    Copper Valley and the Commission staff will hold two scoping
meetings, one in the daytime and one in the evening, to help us
identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the PDEA.
    The daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency concerns,
while the evening scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All
interested agencies, Indian tribes, individuals, and organizations are
invited to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in
identifying the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the
PDEA. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Meeting

    Monday, May 10, 2010, 10 a.m.-Noon, Carr Gottstein Academic
Building, Veco Board Room, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508.

    Note:  Parking is available to the east of the building.

Evening Meeting

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 7 p.m. (Alaska time zone), Valdez Civic
Center, 110 Clifton, Valdez, AK.
    To help focus discussions, Scoping Document 1 (SD1) was mailed on
April 23, 2010, outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
license to the parties on the mailing list. Copies of the SD1 also will
be available at the scoping meetings. SD1 is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Based on all written comments received, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2)
may be issued. SD2 will include a revised list of issues, based on the
scoping meetings.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the NEPA
analysis; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available
information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue;
(3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that
should be analyzed in the PDEA, including viewpoints in opposition to,
or in support of, staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the PDEA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding for the project.

    Individuals, organizations, agencies, and Indian tribes with
environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the
meetings and to assist Copper Valley and Commission staff in defining
and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the PDEA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10061 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23269]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-60-000]

Bonneville Power Administration v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 20, 2015, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), Bonneville Power Administration
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
(Respondent) alleging that the omission of the Respondent's formula
transmission rate under its jurisdictional open access transmission
tariff to account for and reimburse Respondent's transmission customers
for prior period adjustments result in an unjust and unreasonable rate,
as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served
on the Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2015.

    Dated: April 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09664 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 51043]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3530-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Texas (FEMA-3530-EM), dated July 26, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 6, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective July 31, 2020.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-18066 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29543-29544]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2337-077]

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental
Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule: PacifiCorp

    On December 30, 2016, PacifiCorp filed an application for the
continued operation of the 7.2-megawatt Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric
Project No. 2337. On March 15, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of
Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions (REA Notice). The REA notice included a
procedural schedule that included preparation of a single Environmental
Assessment (EA).
    Based on the comments received in response to the REA notice,
Commission staff has determined that its analysis of

the proposed relicensing action will require preparation of a Draft and
Final EA. Thus the application will be processed according to the
following revised procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Draft EA.........................  October 2017.
Comments on Draft EA due...............  November 2017.
Modified terms and conditions due......  January 2018.
Commission issues Final EA.............  April 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Dianne
Rodman at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 23, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13602 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13100-13103]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD;
Amendment 39-15414; AD 2008-06-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *.
    [A]ssessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
certain bonding jumpers, wiring harnesses, and hydraulic systems,
among other items] are required to prevent potential ignition
sources inside the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion. * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 16, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 16,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2008 (73
FR 833). (A correction of the rule was published in the Federal
Register on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5767).) That NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank standards introduced in
Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed
Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then
assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to
determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
certain bonding jumpers, wiring harnesses, and hydraulic systems,
among other items] are required to prevent potential ignition
sources inside the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional Jet Model CL-
600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053, Part 2,
Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the required
maintenance tasks.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new
limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Changes Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the
following ways:
     We have revised paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to add a
reference to ``Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated
agent)'' for approval of a particular document. We also revised
paragraph (f)(5) of this AD to specify that no alternative inspections
or inspection intervals may be used unless they are part of a later
approved revision of Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part
2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to
ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are
treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the
original type certificate.
     In addition, we have simplified the language in Note 1 of
this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if an operator cannot
accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
required inspections.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 689 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of the AD on U.S. operators to be $55,120, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM, the regulatory 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2008-06-02 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15414.
Docket No. FAA-2007-0413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-341-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April
16, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.

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

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank standards introduced in
Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed
Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then
assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to
determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
certain bonding jumpers, wiring harnesses, and hydraulic systems,
among other items] are required to prevent potential ignition
sources inside the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional Jet Model CL-
600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053, Part 2,
Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the required
maintenance tasks.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or on or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the inspection and
maintenance requirements, as applicable, in Appendix D, ``Fuel
System Limitations,'' of Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053,
Revision 7, dated May 10, 2007 (``the MRM''), task numbers 28-11-00-
601, 28-11-00-602, 28-11-00-603, 28-11-00-604, 29-33-01-601, and 29-
33-01-602. For those task numbers, the initial compliance times
start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be
accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in the MRM, except
as provided by paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), (f)(5) and (g)(1)
of this AD. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later
revision of the MRM is an acceptable method of compliance if the
revision is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its
delegated agent).
    (i) The effective date of this AD.
    (ii) The date of issuance of the original Canadian standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
Canadian export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) For airplanes having more than 15,000 flight hours as of the
effective date of this AD, the initial compliance time for Tasks 28-
11-00-601, 28-11-00-602, 28-11-00-603, and 28-11-00-604 is within
5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. Thereafter,
these tasks must be accomplished within the repetitive interval
specified in Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2,
``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007.
    (3) For Task 29-33-01-601, the initial compliance time is within
5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. Thereafter,
task 29-33-01-601 must be accomplished within the repetitive
interval specified in Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of
Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007.
    (4) For airplanes having more than 27,500 flight hours as of the
effective date of this AD, the initial compliance time for Task 29-
33-01-602 is within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD. Thereafter, this task must be accomplished within the
repetitive interval specified in Appendix D, ``Fuel System
Limitations,'' of Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053,
Revision 7, dated May 10, 2007.
    (5) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this AD, no alternative
inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the
inspection or interval is part of a later revision of Appendix D,
``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2, ``Airworthiness
Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements
Manual CSP A-053, Revision 7, dated May 10, 2007, that is approved
by the Manager, New York ACO, FAA, or TCCA (or its delegated agent);
or the limit or interval is approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-29,
dated November 22, 2007, and Appendix D, ``Fuel System
Limitations,'' of Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053,
Revision 7, dated May 10, 2007.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of
Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP-053, Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007, to do the actions

required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station
Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 February 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4501 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06489]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

IVI Communications, Inc., Omnicity Corp., Precision Petroleum
Corporation, PSB Group, Inc., Sustainable Power Corp., and Whitehall
Jewelers Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a WJ Holdings Liquidating Company); Order
of Suspension of Trading

March 20, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IVI Communications, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended December 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Omnicity Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended January 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Precision Petroleum Corporation because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
PSB Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Sustainable Power Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since it registered its common stock under Exchange Act Section 12(g)
pursuant to a Form 10-12G filed on February 12, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a WJ Holdings Liquidating
Company) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period
ended February 2, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. 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 companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 20, 2014, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on April 2, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06489 Filed 3-20-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16358-16361]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety Advisory 2013-02; Low-Speed, Wheel-Climb Derailments of
Passenger Equipment With ``Stiff'' Suspension Systems

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2013-02 to alert railroads and
other industry members about low-speed, wheel-climb derailments of
certain passenger equipment designs having ``stiff'' suspension
systems. These derailments have occurred when such equipment was
negotiating track with a high degree of curvature and crosslevel
variations (commonly referred to as ``track warp'') that were still
within the limits set forth in FRA's Track Safety Standards. The
findings from the derailment investigations conducted by FRA and the
respective railroads highlight the need to ensure that passenger
equipment suspension systems are suitable for more-demanding track
conditions found in low-speed operating environments. To avoid similar
low-speed, wheel-climb derailments, this notice recommends that
railroads and other industry members evaluate the trackworthiness of
certain passenger equipment to determine whether the suspension systems
meet truck-equalization industry standards, prevent wheel climb, and
control static wheel-load distribution under the conditions and within
the limits described in the notice; and take appropriate action to
address the derailment tendency, if any, of the evaluated equipment. In
order to minimize the risk of suspension spring failure, this notice
also recommends that railroads and other industry members assessing the
fatigue life of suspension springs and their corresponding maintenance
intervals use a fatigue-evaluation load equal to the equipment's full-
capacity loading conditions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Muhlanger, Deputy Regional
Administrator, Region 1, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 55 Broadway
Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Gary Fairbanks,
Staff Director, Motive Power and Equipment Division, Office of Railroad
Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Anna Nassif Winkle, Trial Attorney, Office
of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In response to increased performance objectives, such as higher
operating speeds and increased passenger capacity, passenger equipment
suspension systems are becoming stiffer \1\ and more sophisticated, and
may be approaching design limits. In many cases, engineering tradeoffs
are made to meet performance objectives and satisfy specific system
constraints (e.g., clearances for existing tunnels or other
infrastructure). An example is equipment using non-linear vertical
springs, which provide variable stiffness as the vehicle load increases
from AW0 (i.e., empty vehicle ready to run) to AW3 (i.e., vehicle with
full-seated and full-standee load). Such tradeoffs have resulted in
certain newer designs of equipment being operated over more-demanding
track geometry conditions with lower margins of safety, from a
derailment perspective, than older equipment designs. The static weight
distribution and marginal wheel-load equalization that are
characteristic of such suspension system designs can lead to wheel
unloading. This is of particular concern because FRA has determined
that the combination of high, lateral curving forces and wheel
unloading is a major contributing factor to low-speed,\2\ wheel-climb
derailment tendency. Similar wheel-climb derailments are not as likely
to occur at higher speeds on higher classes of track because track
curvature is generally less sharp and the safety limits on track-warp
variations on such track are more stringent. See Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 213.63 and 213.331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Suspension systems that allow lower suspension deflection
for the same load (e.g., due to the use of less flexible springs).
    \2\ Fifteen mph or less. The maximum allowable operating speed
for passenger trains on Class 1 track, as defined under 49 CFR
213.9, is 15 mph. All references in this notice to a section or
other provision of a regulation are to a section, part, or other
provision in 49 CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the derailments prompting issuance of this safety advisory
all occurred on Class 1 track at speeds of 15 mph or less, and did not
result in any injuries, the consequences could have been much worse.
For example, one of the derailments resulted in the derailed train
fouling the adjacent track on which a National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) Acela Express train was traveling. Had the
circumstances been different, a significant collision could have
occurred. Thus, the recommendations in this notice are important not
only in preventing low-speed, wheel-climb derailments themselves but in
preventing what may be more serious consequences of such derailments.
    Although Federal regulations require suspension systems on Tier II
\3\ passenger equipment to reasonably prevent wheel climb and wheel
unloading under all loading conditions and at all track speeds (see
Sec.  238.427), there is no equivalent requirement for Tier I passenger
equipment (see

Sec.  238.227). Further, while the March 13, 2013, final rule on
vehicle/track interaction (VTI) safety standards will promote the safe
interaction of all rail vehicles with the track over which they operate
under a variety of conditions, the rule focuses on high-speed and high
cant deficiency operations, and does not address--in particular--the
prevention of the type of low-speed, wheel-climb derailment that is the
focus of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Tier II passenger equipment operates at speeds exceeding 125
mph but not exceeding 150 mph, whereas Tier I passenger equipment
operates at speeds not exceeding 125 mph. See Sec.  238.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the development of the VTI rule and as a result of working
with a number of railroads to investigate several low-speed, wheel-
climb derailments at that time, FRA recognized the need to address such
derailments more comprehensively. Specifically, FRA was concerned that
there needed to be greater compatibility between certain designs of
passenger equipment (i.e., those having ``stiff'' suspension systems)
and the lower track classes over which they operated, as such equipment
was experiencing derailments while negotiating track with a high degree
of curvature and with track warps that were still within the limits set
forth in FRA's Track Safety Standards. The Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) task force that was assigned to assist FRA in
developing the VTI rule was initially tasked to consider addressing the
issue in that rulemaking. However, the task force, with the concurrence
of the full RSAC, recommended that the issue be addressed by an
industry standard on truck equalization, rather than in the VTI rule.
To that end, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
issued a standard on truck equalization.\4\ However, the APTA standard
applies to passenger equipment suspension systems loaded in the AW0
condition only, as wheel load equalization was traditionally seen as an
issue principally affecting empty cars. Although APTA members recently
voted to re-open the standard to incorporate further lessons learned
from recent derailment investigations, FRA recognizes that it will take
some time to do so. This notice of safety advisory is intended to more
fully address the issue in the meantime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See APTA SS-M-014-06, Standard for Wheel Load Equalization
of Passenger Railroad Rolling Stock (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Specific Recommendations

    The first recommendation is that railroads and other industry
members conduct a trackworthiness evaluation of certain passenger
equipment to determine whether suspension systems meet truck-
equalization industry standards, prevent wheel climb, and control
static wheel-load distribution under certain conditions and within
certain limits. Because the manufacturing process inherently results in
small variances in some of the vehicle's components, vehicle designs
necessarily include a nominal value for certain components, as well as
tolerances for those components. The designs also specify tolerances
for maintenance limits to account for in-service wear and degradation
of components. Thus, a trackworthiness evaluation of a vehicle type's
performance should also take into account the full range of component
tolerances (e.g., spring heights) and maintenance limits (e.g., wheel
wear). Railroads and industry members should be aware that vehicles may
or may not exhibit derailment tendencies over the range of new vehicle
component tolerances. Similarly, vehicles with in-service wear that are
still operating within all maintenance tolerances may or may not
exhibit derailment tendencies. Therefore, it is important to consider
all combinations of component and maintenance tolerances in evaluating
trackworthiness.
    Although conducting such an evaluation at the design stage for new
equipment is both desirable and feasible from a practical standpoint,
FRA recognizes that it would be quite burdensome to conduct such an
evaluation for all existing equipment. Therefore, FRA has focused the
recommendations regarding existing equipment in this notice to
situations that are easier to address or where the equipment is at
greatest risk for experiencing similar derailments. Consequently, FRA
is limiting the formal recommendations in this notice to existing
equipment that (1) Is undergoing a redesign of its suspension system
that will likely affect the low-speed trackworthiness performance of
the vehicle; (2) is being placed in service over a new route that the
railroad knows to have more demanding track geometry conditions; or (3)
has experienced one or more low-speed, wheel-climb derailments that may
have involved a combination of wheel unloading and track warp of 3
inches or less as a contributing factor.
    In addition, if the results of a trackworthiness evaluation
indicate that the equipment's performance does not meet one or more of
the conditions described, FRA is recommending different levels of
action depending on whether the equipment is new (or redesigned) or
existing. For new equipment or equipment undergoing a redesign of its
suspension system that will likely affect the low-speed trackworthiness
performance of the vehicle, FRA recommends that the suspension system
be redesigned to perform according to the conditions described. For
existing equipment, FRA is recommending that appropriate action be
taken to mitigate the derailment tendency. This would include
redesigning the equipment or taking other appropriate action, such as
ensuring that the track over which the equipment is operating is
maintained to standards appropriate for the specific equipment type, or
placing operational restrictions on the equipment, or both. FRA
believes that this approach makes the recommendations more effective
and focused.
    FRA notes in particular that the reason for including in these
recommendations existing equipment that is being placed in service over
a new route that the railroad knows to have more demanding track
geometry conditions is because the equipment may be subjected to
different track conditions (e.g., a route with higher-degree-of-
curvature track or a route with track that is maintained to lower
standards) and interact differently with the track, potentially leading
to similar wheel-climb derailments. In addition, FRA believes that some
railroads may not be aware that the equipment they are operating is
prone to such derailments because they are already taking some action
that mitigates the derailment tendency of the equipment. For example, a
railroad may have decided, for unrelated reasons, to maintain the track
over which the equipment travels to higher, Class 2 standards, even
though the track is formally designated as Class 1. If the railroad
were to stop maintaining this track to Class 2 standards without taking
any other action to mitigate the risk (e.g., by putting operational
restrictions on the equipment), it is possible that the equipment would
begin exhibiting similar derailment tendency.
    Recognizing that certain newer suspension system designs may result
in equalization performance in the AW3 loading condition that makes the
equipment more prone to derailment than when it is in the AW0 loading
condition, FRA believes it is important to evaluate the equalization of
suspension systems in the AW3 loading condition as well. Accordingly,
FRA recommends that railroads and other industry members ensure that
such evaluation is conducted using the AW3 loading condition for all
new passenger equipment and for the three categories of existing
equipment identified in this

notice. This will help ensure that the suspension system will be able
to prevent wheel unloading when the equipment is loaded to capacity.
    Although assessment of wheel-load equalization is important in
preventing the wheel unloading and wheel climb indicated in the subject
derailments, FRA has determined that the tests and analyses typically
used for evaluating wheel-climb and wheel-unloading tendency could be
enhanced by including a curving-performance assessment with track-warp
variations at the Class 1 limits \5\ for a broad spectrum of
wavelengths. For example, in reviewing the information available for
eight recent low-speed, wheel-climb derailments \6\ involving multi-
level vehicles,\7\ it was discovered that three of the vehicles
derailed at or near track warps of a broad spectrum of wavelengths
(i.e., a 3-inch track warp in 62 feet, a 1.75-inch track warp in 30
feet, and a 2-inch track warp in 10 feet). Although track geometry data
was not recorded for all eight incidents, based on the computer
modeling conducted by the equipment manufacturer during the derailment
investigations to assess the capabilities of the subject vehicle type,
it is likely that the five other vehicles derailed under similar
circumstances. Thus, FRA is recommending that all new, and the three
categories of existing, passenger equipment identified in this notice
be evaluated to determine whether the suspension systems prevent wheel
climb while negotiating, at a minimum, a 12-degree curve with a
coefficient of friction (COF) representative of dry track conditions
(i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp variations with the following
wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. FRA also recommends that, under
both the AW0 and AW3 loading conditions, the ratio of lateral force to
vertical force (``L/V ratio'') on any wheel not exceed, for a duration
of more than 5 feet, the ratio given by Nadal's limit with a COF of 0.5
(i.e., the FRA single-wheel L/V ratio criterion in Sec.  213.333).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Sec.  213.63, prescribing limits for the difference in
crosslevel between any two points (measured along the rails of the
track) less than 62 feet apart. For FRA Class 1 track, the
difference in crosslevel may not be more than 3 inches.
    \6\ Nothing in this safety advisory is intended to place
responsibility for these incidents on the acts or omissions of any
person or entity.
    \7\ These multi-level vehicles were placed in service between
2006 and 2008, and were designed to provide stable operation at
speeds up to 125 mph and meet clearance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FRA notes that sensitivity studies conducted by the
equipment manufacturer and FRA using computer modeling indicate that an
uneven wheel-load distribution has a significant influence on the
margin of safety against derailment. That is, passenger equipment with
a wheel having a static load up to 10-percent below the nominal load
can tolerate significantly less track warp even when the equipment
meets the APTA equalization standard. Therefore, FRA is recommending
that all new passenger equipment and the three categories of existing
passenger equipment identified in this notice be evaluated to determine
whether the suspension systems control static wheel-load distribution
when the equipment is stationary on perfectly level track such that the
lightest wheel load deviates by no more than 5 percent from the nominal
wheel load.
    Furthermore, while the subject derailments were primarily related
to trackworthiness issues, in several other recent low-speed
derailments, FRA has determined that broken primary springs were a
contributing factor. Although it appears that high coil-to-coil contact
stresses within the end coils were a large contributing factor to the
broken suspension springs in these derailments, FRA is also aware that
spring failures are likely to occur when the fatigue life of suspension
springs and their corresponding maintenance intervals are inadequately
determined.
    Additionally, FRA understands that softer springs, which may be
selected to provide better wheel-load equalization (and correspondingly
decrease the likelihood of the subject low-speed derailments), may be
more prone to failure and consequently may need more frequent
maintenance than the stiffer springs. In order to ensure that springs
are capable of withstanding both the static and dynamic loads imposed
in service under all passenger loading conditions from empty (AW0) to
full capacity (AW3), FRA is recommending that the fatigue life of
suspension springs and their corresponding maintenance intervals be
determined using a fatigue-evaluation load equal to the full-capacity
loading conditions. As is the case with the other recommendations in
this notice, FRA has limited the applicability of this recommendation,
namely by applying it to all new passenger equipment designed with
suspension springs, and existing passenger equipment with such springs
when the springs are redesigned.
    FRA believes that addressing the above interrelated issues through
the recommended measures will reduce the risk of wheel-climb
derailments over more-demanding track geometry conditions found in low-
speed operating environments. In addition, FRA anticipates that
implementation of the recommendations through redesign will promote
interoperability of passenger equipment throughout the U.S rail network
and help avoid the need for equipment-specific track geometry limits or
operational restrictions, or both.
    Recommended Action: In light of the observed passenger equipment
design trends and recent incidents, FRA recommends that railroads and
other industry members take the following actions:
    1. Evaluate the trackworthiness of the following equipment types
intended for use in the United States:
     All new passenger equipment types.
     Any existing passenger equipment type that is undergoing a
redesign of its suspension system that will likely affect the low-speed
trackworthiness performance of the vehicle.
     Any existing passenger equipment type that is being placed
in service over a new route that the railroad knows to have more-
demanding track geometry conditions (e.g., curvature, warp, etc.).
     Any existing passenger equipment type that has experienced
one or more low-speed, wheel-climb derailments that may have had a
combination of wheel unloading and track warp of 3 inches or less as a
contributing factor.
    Such evaluation should take into account the full range of
component tolerances and maintenance limits, and determine whether--
    a. Suspension systems meet the APTA truck equalization standard,
APTA SS-M-014-06, Standard for Wheel Load Equalization of Passenger
Railroad Rolling Stock (2007), under both the AW0 and AW3 loading
conditions.
    b. Suspension systems prevent wheel climb while negotiating, at a
minimum, a 12-degree curve with a COF representative of dry track
conditions (i.e., 0.5) and 3-inch track warp variations with the
following wavelengths: 10, 20, 40, and 62 feet. Under both the AW0 and
AW3 loading conditions, the L/V ratio on any wheel should not exceed,
for a duration of more than 5 feet, the ratio given by Nadal's limit
with a COF of 0.5 (i.e., the FRA single-wheel L/V ratio criterion in
Sec.  213.333).
    c. Suspension systems control static wheel-load distribution when
the equipment is stationary on perfectly level track such that the
lightest wheel load deviates by no more than 5 percent from the nominal
wheel load.
    2. If the results of the trackworthiness evaluation conducted in
accordance with recommendation 1 of this notice indicate that the
passenger equipment does not meet one or more of the conditions
specified in that

recommendation, or if a railroad otherwise has knowledge that the
equipment does not meet one or more of these conditions, take
appropriate action to address the equipment's derailment tendency as
follows:
    a. For new equipment or equipment undergoing a redesign of its
suspension system that will likely affect the low-speed trackworthiness
performance of the vehicle, as applicable, redesign the suspension
system so that it meets truck-equalization industry standards, prevents
wheel climb, and controls static wheel-load distribution under the
conditions and within the limits specified in recommendation 1 of this
notice.
    b. For existing equipment that is being placed in service over a
new route that the railroad knows to have more-demanding track geometry
conditions, or that has experienced one or more low-speed, wheel-climb
derailments, as described in this notice, redesign the suspension
system as described in recommendation 2a of this notice, or take other
appropriate action to mitigate the derailment tendency, such as by
ensuring that the track over which the equipment is operating is
maintained to standards appropriate for the specific equipment type, or
by placing operational restrictions on the equipment, or both.
    3. For all new passenger equipment types designed with suspension
springs, and for existing passenger equipment types with such springs
when the springs are redesigned, ensure that the fatigue life of the
springs and their corresponding maintenance intervals are determined
using the AW3 loading condition.
    FRA encourages railroads and other industry members to take actions
that are consistent with the preceding recommendations and to take
other actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's railroads,
their employees, and the general public. FRA may modify this Safety
Advisory 2013-02, issue additional safety advisories, or take other
appropriate actions it deems necessary to ensure the highest level of
safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursuing other corrective
measures under its rail safety authority.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-06000 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P