[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21299-21300]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2009-E-0175 and FDA-2009-E-0173]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; VIMPAT--NDA 22-254

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for VIMPAT based on new drug application (NDA)
22-254 for VIMPAT injection and is publishing this notice of that
determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of patents
which claim the human drug product, VIMPAT. The regulatory review
period determination for VIMPAT Tablets is publishing in this issue of
the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 0993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product VIMPAT
(lacosamide). VIMPAT injection is indicated as adjunctive therapy in
the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients with epilepsy aged
17 years and older when oral administration is temporarily not
feasible. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office
received patent term restoration applications for VIMPAT (U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,654,301 and RE38,551) from Research Corporation Technologies,
Inc., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated September 29, 2009, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of VIMPAT represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
VIMPAT is 3,452 days. Of this time, 3,055 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while, 397 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
May 19, 1999. The applicant claims November 14, 2003, as the date an
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
according to FDA records, this IND was not the first IND received for
this active ingredient. In general, FDA has used the first IND of the
active ingredient of the drug product as the beginning of the testing
phase, if information derived from this first IND was or could have
been relied on or was relevant for approval to market the drug product.
FDA records indicate that the effective date of the first IND for
lacosamide was May 19, 1999, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of
this first IND. This is the same IND and the same date FDA determined
was the beginning of the regulatory review period for Vimpat Tablets
approved under new drug application (NDA) 22-253. The regulatory review
period determination for VIMPAT Tablets is publishing in this issue of
the Federal Register.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act: September 28,
2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) 22-254 for VIMPAT injection was submitted on
September 28, 2007.
    3. The date the application was approved: October 28, 2008. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-254 was approved on October
28, 2008.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,104 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination
by June 22, 2010. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA
for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted
with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 20,
2010. To meet its burden,

the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA
investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-
42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket numbers found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 22, 2010.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2010-9509 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15332-15336]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0279; Notice No. 18-01]
RIN 2120-AK94

IFR Operations at Locations Without Weather Reporting

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would allow helicopter air ambulance (HAA)
operators to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departure and
approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an
approved weather reporting source in HAA aircraft without functioning
severe weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike
detection equipment), when there is no reasonable expectation of severe
weather at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of
flight. This rule would also update requirements to address the
discontinuance of area forecasts, currently used as flight planning and
pilot weather briefing aids. Additionally, this rulemaking proposes to
update requirements regarding HAA departure procedures to include
additional types of departure procedures that are currently acceptable
for use.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0279
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Luipersbeck, Air Transportation
Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This rulemaking would amend 14 CFR 135.611(b) to allow helicopter
air ambulance (HAA) operators using aircraft without functioning severe
weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike
detection equipment), to conduct IFR departure and approach procedures
at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather
reporting source. In conducting these operations, the pilot in command
must not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather at the
destination, the alternate, or along the route of flight. This action
would encourage utilization of the IFR infrastructure to the fullest
extent possible, thus increasing the overall safety of HAA Operations.
    This rulemaking also proposes to update certain provisions in Sec.
135.611(a)(1) to address the discontinuance of area forecasts,
currently used as flight planning and pilot weather briefing aids, and
the transition to digital and graphical alternatives already being
produced by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS). Additionally, this
rulemaking proposes to update requirements in Sec.  135.611(a)(3)
regarding HAA departure procedures to include additional types of
departure procedures that are currently acceptable for use.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44730.

III. Background

    Section 135.611 contains provisions to allow certificate holders to
conduct HAA IFR operations at airports with an instrument approach
procedure and at which a weather report is not available from the NWS,
a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA. Each
aircraft operated under Sec.  135.611 must be equipped with functioning
equipment to detect severe weather, even when weather reports and
forecasts indicate no foreseeable severe weather conditions will exist
along the route to be flown.

A. Statement of the Problem

    Section 135.611(b) unnecessarily limits the ability of certain HAA
operators to conduct IFR departure and

approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an
approved weather reporting source. The current limitations
inadvertently restrict HAA operations conducted when no severe weather
is present at the airport or along the route, by requiring all HAA
operated under Sec.  135.611 be equipped with functioning severe
weather detection equipment. The FAA has determined this requirement is
too broad, because a pilot in command can discern whether severe
weather at the destination, the alternate airport, or along the route,
will exist. The proposed amendment will allow pilots to conduct
operations if current weather reports indicate thunderstorms or other
hazardous weather is not expected during the flight.
    The FAA intends for the proposed amendment to Sec.  135.611 to
encourage IFR operations and result in more aircraft operating in
positively controlled environments, thereby increasing the safety of
HAA operations. Altering the requirements of Sec.  135.611(b) will
increase the frequency of IFR operations, thereby minimizing pilots'
operations under visual flight rules (VFR) in marginal visual
meteorological conditions. The proposed amendment would provide greater
opportunity for HAA operations to enter the National Airspace System
(NAS) under IFR than previously permitted.

B. Exemption History

    Since the requirement in Sec.  135.611(b) was established (79 FR
43622, July 28, 2014), nine HAA certificate holders have petitioned for
exemptions to Sec.  135.611(b) to allow them to operate without
functioning severe weather detection equipment when severe weather
conditions are not reasonably expected along the route to be flown.\1\
In such circumstances, the FAA has issued exemptions to HAA operators
that have allowed the safe conduct of IFR departure and approach
procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved
weather reporting source in HAA aircraft without functioning severe
weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike
detection equipment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the following FAA grants of petitions for exemption:
Docket Nos. FAA-2016-5575, FAA-2016-5028, FAA-2015-3934, FAA-2015-
3854, FAA-2015-3740, FAA-2015-2696, FAA-2015-2694, FAA-2015-1868,
and FAA-2015-1867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA found that the first petition, which granted the same
relief as that provided in this proposed rulemaking, would set a
precedent. Therefore, to allow for the public to comment on the
petition, a summary of the petition was published in the Federal
Register on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34195). No comments were received.

IV. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Modification of Requirement for Severe Weather Detection Equipment

    Existing Sec.  135.611 permits HAA certificate holders to conduct
helicopter IFR operations at airports with an instrument approach
procedure and at which a weather report is not available from the NWS,
a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA. Each HAA
aircraft operated under existing Sec.  135.611 must be equipped with
functioning equipment to detect severe weather, even when weather
reports and forecasts indicate no foreseeable severe weather conditions
will exist along the route to be flown.
    The FAA's initial intent of requiring severe weather detection
equipment was to help the pilot ascertain the weather in the aircraft's
vicinity (75 FR 62640, 62650 (October 12, 2010)) and thus mitigate the
risk of inadvertently encountering instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC). The agency has reconsidered this requirement and determined it
is overly broad, because it applies even in circumstances in which the
pilot does not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather along the
route or at the destination airport. Further, existing training on
meteorology to ensure a practical knowledge of weather phenomena,
including the principles of frontal systems, icing, fog, thunderstorms,
meteorology hazards applicable to the certificate holder's areas of
operation, adverse weather avoidance practices, and weather planning
are all currently part of required training program curriculum segments
for HAA operations. This training, together with the pre-flight risk
analysis required in Sec.  135.617, provide the pilot in command with
the tools by which to ascertain whether severe weather may reasonably
exist along the route of a flight or at the destination airport. Pre-
flight risk analysis and training designed specifically for HAA
operations function to verify the pilot in command can adequately
analyze departure, en route, destination and forecasted weather. The
continued existence of these requirements verifies a pilot in command
does not need severe weather detection equipment when he or she does
not reasonably expect to encounter severe weather.
    Pilots' determinations concerning the potential for encountering
severe weather conditions will result from the routine flight planning
they complete prior to operating any aircraft.\2\ Prior to the first
leg of each HAA operation, the pilot in command must conduct a
preflight risk analysis pursuant to Sec.  135.617 to ensure awareness
of departure, en route, destination, and forecasted weather. The risk
analysis also includes determining whether another HAA operator has
rejected a flight request based on the presence of any severe weather
or dangerous meteorological phenomena. Overall, the pilot in command
will use the knowledge and skills he or she maintains pursuant to the
provisions of part subpart L of part 135 in determining the likelihood
of encountering severe weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA provides various resources to which pilots may refer
in conducting risk analyses to prepare for flight. See, e.g.,
Instrument Procedures Handbook, FAA-H-8083-16B (Sept. 14, 2017);
Aviation Weather, FAA Advisory Circular 00-6B (Aug. 23, 2016);
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, FAA-H-8083-25B (2016);
Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By eliminating the Sec.  135.611(b) requirement for each HAA
aircraft to be equipped with severe weather detection equipment when
there is no forecast of severe weather, the proposed amendment would
allow more HAA operators to conduct IFR departure and approach
procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved
weather reporting source. This proposed amendment would encourage
utilization of the IFR infrastructure to the fullest extent possible by
allowing more operators to use the IFR infrastructure, thereby avoiding
the potential for controlled flight into terrain accidents during
flights conducted under marginal visual flight rules conditions. This
action would also increase the opportunity for access to critical care
patient flights when weather conditions are below those required for
VFR operation, but do not involve the potential for severe weather.
    The FAA emphasizes, however, that if a reasonable expectation of
severe weather exists during the flight and in the vicinity of the
planned route, the helicopter must be equipped with operable severe
weather detection equipment or the flight must be declined or aborted.

B. Updated Requirements

    As noted previously, this rulemaking also proposes to update
certain other provisions of Sec.  135.611, specifically Sec.
135.611(a)(1) regarding area forecasts and Sec.  135.611(a)(3)
regarding departure procedures.

Area Forecasts
    The FAA, in coordination with the NWS, expects to discontinue Area
Forecasts, currently used as flight planning and pilot weather briefing
aids and transition to digital and graphical alternatives already being
produced by NWS.\3\ While the Area Forecast met aviation weather
information needs for many years, today the NWS provides equivalent
information through a number of better alternatives.\4\ In order to
address this future transition, this rulemaking proposes to update the
wording of Sec.  135.611(a)(1) from ``area forecast'' to ``weather
reports, forecasts, or any combination of them.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Aviation Weather Product Change: Transition of Select Area
Forecasts (FAs) to Digital and Graphical Alternatives, 79 FR 35211
(June 19, 2014). In the Notice, the FAA recommended that NWS
transition six FAs covering separate geographical areas of the
contiguous United States and one area forecast covering Hawaii to
digital and graphical alternatives already being produced by NWS.
The seven area forecasts affected by this transition included FAUS41
(BOS), FAUS42 (MIA), FAUS43 (CHI), FAUS44 (DFW), FAUS45 (SLC),
FAUS46 (SFO), and FAHW31 (Hawaii).
    \4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Departure Procedures
    This rulemaking proposes to update requirements in Sec.  135.611
regarding HAA departure procedures (DP) to include additional types of
DP that are currently acceptable for use. A DP is required in order to
depart an airport in weather conditions less than VFR. Several types of
DPs, however, exist in addition to an obstacle departure procedure
cited in the current regulation, such as a diverse departure or
standard instrument departure. Based on an evaluation of these
departure procedures, FAA has determined that any of these DPs may be
appropriate and safe because of ensured obstacle clearance and
flyability (when used appropriate to the location). In this rulemaking,
the FAA proposes to update the wording in Sec.  135.611(a)(3) from
``the published Obstacle Departure Procedure'' to ``a published
Departure Procedure.''

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and
procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If
the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this rule.
    The FAA determined that this action will likely result in
regulatory cost savings. Without this rule there will remain in place
unnecessary limits on certain helicopter air ambulance (HAA)
operations. These limits effectively reduce the number of HAA
operations without improving aviation safety. The FAA has been granting
exemptions to HAA operators who asked for relief from these limitations
and the FAA expects these requests to continue. This change will
relieve HAA operators and the FAA of those procedural costs estimated
to be $1,500/exemption. This rule would have eliminated the expense of
nine petitions for exemption that the FAA granted.\5\ The FAA has,
therefore, determined that this rule has cost-savings, has minimal
impact, is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the following FAA grants of petitions for exemption:
Docket Nos. FAA-2016-5575, FAA-2016-5028, FAA-2015-3934, FAA-2015-
3854, FAA-2015-3740, FAA-2015-2696, FAA-2015-2694, FAA-2015-1868,
and FAA-2015-1867. The FAA subsequently granted six petitions to
extend the effective dates of the exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine
whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear. As this rule removes an unnecessary limitation on the operation
of HAA without reducing aviation safety, it will relieve HAA operators
of the costs associated with installing unnecessary equipment. Given
the demographics on HAA operators, this rule will likely impact a
substantial number of small entities. However, it will have a minimal
economic impact. Therefore, the head of the agency certifies the rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United

States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective,
such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that
excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this rule and determined that the rule will have
the same impact on international and domestic flights and is a safety
rule thus is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in the Regulatory Evaluation section, above.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites 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.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, 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 it receives 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 agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135

    Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105;
Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).

0
2. Amend Sec.  135.611 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  135.611   IFR operations at locations without weather reporting.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The certificate holder must obtain a weather report from a
weather reporting facility operated by the NWS, a source approved by
the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, that is located within 15
nautical miles of the airport. If a weather report is not available,
the certificate holder may obtain weather reports, forecasts, or any
combination of them from the NWS, a source approved by the NWS, or a
source approved by the FAA, for information regarding the weather
observed in the vicinity of the airport;
* * * * *
    (3) In Class G airspace, IFR departures with visual transitions are
authorized only after the pilot in command determines that the weather
conditions at the departure point are at or above takeoff minimums
depicted in a published Departure Procedure or VFR minimum ceilings and
visibilities in accordance with Sec.  135.609.
* * * * *
    (b) Each helicopter air ambulance operated under this section must
be equipped with functioning severe weather detection equipment, unless
the pilot in command reasonably determines severe weather will not be
encountered at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of
flight.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44730 in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07296 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13540-13541]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1249-000]

Vineyard Reliability LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Vineyard Reliability LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is March 23, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 3, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04843 Filed 3-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 52838-52839]
[DOCID:fr14oc09-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy
International

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary waiver of the minimum usage requirement.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces a temporary waiver of the usage
requirements necessary to hold Operating Authorizations at John F.
Kennedy International Airport (JFK). This policy is effective from
March 1 through November 14, 2010.

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Tegtmeier, Associate Chief
Counsel for the Air Traffic Organization, AGC-40, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Beginning in March 2010, there will be runway and airfield
construction at JFK that will temporarily affect operations at the
airport. Runway 13R/31L is the airport's most frequently used and
longest runway. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port
Authority) indicates the runway historically accommodates a significant
percentage of the annual air traffic operations at JFK, particularly
departures. The Port Authority plans to resurface the runway with
concrete and widen it to accommodate new large aircraft and to help
prevent ice ingestion. In addition, the Port Authority will install new
runway lighting, electrical infrastructure, and a new electrical feeder
system to the runway. The Port Authority opted for a more extensive
rehabilitation project to provide for a 40-year design life by
surfacing with concrete instead of an 8-year design life with asphalt;
however, the project will render Runway 13R/31L unavailable from March
1 until June 30, 2010. The western two-thirds of the runway will reopen
July 1, but its use will be limited under some weather and operating
conditions, primarily because some high-speed runway turnoffs and
navigational aids (NAVAIDS) will be unavailable until later in the
construction period. On September 15, Runway 4L/22R will close until
September 30 to resurface its intersection with Runway 13R/31L. The
entire Runway 13R/31L and its associated NAVAIDS will be fully
functional on November 15, 2010.
    The FAA, the Port Authority, JFK operators, and other stakeholders
have been meeting regularly to identify ways to mitigate congestion and
delay in light of the runway and airfield construction. Surface
management of aircraft requires further study, as some runway
configurations may increase ground congestion, but we will continue to
work to maximize the available infrastructure. In addition, we have
identified preferred alternative runway configurations.
    The FAA worked with MITRE's Center for Advanced Aviation System
Development (CAASD) to estimate the capacity and potential delay
impacts of the loss of Runway 13R/31L. MITRE CAASD and the FAA looked
at historic runway configurations and operating conditions and the
likely runway configurations that would substitute for Runway 13R/31L.
Modeling compared the March, April, May, and June 2009 flight schedules
by month against historic capacity and then against projected capacity
in the same months for 2010, when Runway 13R/31L is closed. In each
month, delays would increase over the corresponding month in 2009. The
modeled peak afternoon and evening departure delays would increase
significantly with the April-June schedules, adding about an average of
ten minutes per aircraft. The modeled peak delays using March 2009
schedules and the construction capacity would remain within the levels
accepted for the 2008 scheduling limits.
    The FAA initiated discussions with the largest carriers at the
airport, and they have agreed to keep their schedules at March 2009
levels from March 1 until at least July 1. In addition, those carriers
and others have expressed concern about the operations for the
remaining months of the construction and have agreed to cancel some
flights even after Runway 13R/31L returns to partial service after June
30. This will assist in mitigating delays throughout the construction
period.
    Under the FAA's order limiting scheduled operations at JFK,
Operating Authorizations must be used at least 80 percent of the time
they are allocated or they will be withdrawn. Historic precedence is
given for the next scheduling season only for Operating Authorizations
that meet the minimum usage threshold for the corresponding period
during the prior scheduling season. The FAA may grant a waiver from the
minimum usage requirements in highly unusual and unpredictable
conditions that are beyond the control of the carrier and affect
carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

Statement of Policy

    The FAA has determined that the projected operational, congestion,
and delay impacts of the 2010 runway and airfield construction program
meet the requirements for a temporary waiver of the minimum usage rule
at JFK. Absent a waiver, carriers would be required to operate flights
in order to meet the minimum usage rules or to find another carrier to
operate them. With the capacity impacts during the construction, the
public interest supports a reduction in operations in order to minimize
delays and improve on-time performance. Under the circumstances,
carriers that temporarily reduce flights or elect to temporarily return
Operating Authorizations to the FAA rather than transfer them for
another carrier's use should not be penalized by permanently losing the
authority to operate. The FAA appreciates that some carriers have
already agreed voluntarily to postpone traditional summer flight
increases. In light of this minimum usage waiver, we expect that other
carriers may also temporarily limit their summer 2010 operations.
    This minimum usage waiver applies only to Operating Authorizations
at JFK. Carriers generally must provide advance notice of cancellations
to the FAA Slot Administration Office in order to obtain a waiver.
However, there may be times when delays are excessive and carriers
elect to cancel flights shortly before their scheduled operation. The
operational cancellation of a scheduled flight under these
circumstances may still qualify for a usage waiver, provided that it is
reported as a delay-related cancellation on the usage report submitted
to the FAA by the carrier. Information on the use of Operating
Authorizations should be provided to the Slot Administration Office by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In consideration of the above, the FAA is waiving the minimum usage
requirement for Operating

Authorizations at JFK from March 1 through November 14, 2010.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2009.
J. David Grizzle,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-24663 Filed 10-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 64779-64781]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0271]

Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: New York City, Cook
County, and New Jersey Tax Identification Requirements; Petition for
Determination

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Grant of petition for determination.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA grants three petitions submitted by the American
Trucking Associations (ATA) requesting determinations that the
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) identification requirements imposed by
the State of New Jersey, New York City, and Cook County, Illinois are
preempted by Federal law. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) prohibits
States and their political subdivisions from requiring motor carriers
to display in or on CMVs any form of identification other than forms
required by the Secretary of Transportation, with certain exceptions.
FMCSA grants ATA's requests because the three credential display
requirements do not qualify for the relevant statutory exception for
State display of credentials and are preempted by Federal statute.

DATES: This decision is effective October 20, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    New Jersey's tax code requires all motor carriers hauling,
transporting, or delivering fuel to display a Motor Fuel Transport
License Plate and annual Transport License Certificate. This
requirement applies to all motor carriers hauling, transporting, or
delivering fuel in New Jersey regardless of their State of domicile or
registration. New Jersey Statutes Annotated Sec.  54:39-41 and Sec.
54:39-53. New York City's Administrative Code, Sec.  11-809, requires
CMVs used principally in New York City or in connection with a business
carried on within New York City to pay a tax and display a stamp. The
requirement appears to apply whether or not the CMV is registered to an
address in New York City. Cook County's Code of Ordinances requires
motor vehicle owners residing within the unincorporated area of Cook
County to: (a) Display a window sticker showing payment of fees; and
(b) paint business vehicle identification information on their
vehicles. Article XIV of chapter 74 of the Cook County Code of
Ordinances is referred to as the ``Cook County Wheel Tax on Motor
Vehicles Ordinance.''
    Section 4306(a) of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49 U.S.C. 14506(a),
prohibits States from requiring motor carriers to display in or on CMVs
any form of identification other than forms required by the Secretary
of Transportation. Section 14506(b), however, establishes several
exceptions to this prohibition:

    (b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State may
continue to require display of credentials that are required--
    (1) Under the International Registration Plan under section
31704 [of title 49, United States Code];
    (2) Under the International Fuel Tax Agreement under section
31705 [of title 49, United States Code];
    (3) Under a State law regarding motor vehicle license plates or
other displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate;
    (4) In connection with Federal requirements for hazardous
materials transportation under section 5103 [of title 49, United
States Code]; or
    (5) In connection with the Federal vehicle inspection standards
under section 31136 [of title 49, United States Code].

    The exception relevant to ATA's petitions is Sec.  14506(b)(3),
which provides that ``a State may continue to require display of
credentials that are required * * * under a State law regarding motor
vehicle license plates or other displays that the Secretary determines
are appropriate.'' The Secretary's authority is delegated to FMCSA by
49 CFR 1.73(a)(7).
    ATA's petitions seeking determinations, along with the applicable
statutes, regulations, and ordinances, are available for inspection in
the docket established for this notice.

Public Comments

    On October 19, 2009, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal
Register, ``Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: New York City,
Cook County and New Jersey Tax Identification Requirements; Petition
for Determination'' (74 FR 53578), requesting public comment on ATA's
petitions. In formulating its decision, FMCSA considered all of the
comments received in response to the Agency's notice.
    FMCSA received 11 comments, of which 7 were from trade
associations, 3 from motor carriers, and 1 from an individual. All
commenters supported preemption.
    ATA and the Distribution and LTL Carriers Association commented
that the credential display requirements are related to revenue raising
and that they do not fall under any of the Sec.  14506(b) exceptions.
Con-way Inc. commented that the credential display requirements are
impediments to interstate commerce. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
commented that, as an interstate carrier operating in many States, it
finds credential display requirements to be burdensome. UPS further
commented that, although the vehicles in its fleet may be in compliance
with State or local tax, fee, or permit requirements, if its drivers
cannot display the appropriate credential on demand, the company can
nonetheless receive a citation. Martin Storage Co. also commented that
the paperwork associated with State and local credential display
requirements is burdensome. The Truckload Carriers Association and the
Truck Renting and Leasing Association commented that the credential
display requirements are not eligible for the Sec.  14506(b)(3)
exception because they are not related to vehicle registration. The
National Private Truck Council observed that none of the affected
jurisdictions submitted comments to justify the credential display
requirements.
    In addition, FMCSA received a letter from the Office of the State's
Attorney of Cook County acknowledging that its credential display
requirement is preempted. This letter is also available for review in
the docket.

FMCSA Decision

    New Jersey's tax credential display requirement is a State-mandated
form of identification preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14506(a) and does not
qualify for the exception at Sec.  14506(b)(3). First, it is not an
identification requirement related to motor vehicle license plates.
Even though the credential itself is in the form of a license plate,
its purpose does not relate to State licensing of vehicles. Rather, it
appears to identify those motor carriers, registered in New Jersey or
elsewhere, that have paid State taxes for hauling, transporting, or
delivering motor fuel. Second, New Jersey failed to articulate any
justification for FMCSA to exercise its delegated discretion to approve
the display.
    New York City's and Cook County's display requirements are also
preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14506(a) because they are identification
requirements mandated by political subdivisions of a State. However,
the assessment of whether a Sec.  14506(b) exception applies to these
display requirements requires a slightly different analysis. The
prohibition in Sec.  14506(a) specifically applies to States, political
subdivisions of States, interstate agencies and other political
agencies of two or more States, whereas the exceptions in Sec.
14506(b) apply to States without mention of political subdivisions or
agencies. Consequently, the first question the Agency must answer is
whether a Sec.  14506(b) exception can apply to a political subdivision
of a State.
    Two possible interpretations exist. One is that Congress intended
for States, political subdivisions of States, interstate agencies and
other political agencies of two or more States to be subject to the
general prohibition on display of identification requirements, but only
intended for States (and not the other subdivisions and agencies) to be
eligible for the exceptions in Sec.  14506(b). The second is that
Congress intended the States, as well as political subdivisions and
agencies, to be eligible for the exceptions and that its omission of
these other entities from Sec.  14506(b) is not evidence of its intent
to exclude them from being eligible for the exception. FMCSA believes
that the latter is the correct interpretation.
    In City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, 536 U.S. 424
(2002), the Supreme Court considered a provision with nearly identical
language to Sec.  14506 and determined that Congress' exclusion of
political

subdivisions in the exception was not a sufficiently clear and manifest
indication of its intent to preempt local regulation. In reaching this
conclusion, the Court made two points that guide our analysis and
conclusions here. First, consistent with existing precedent, a
political subdivision may exercise whatever portion of State power the
State chooses to delegate under its own constitution and laws. Id. at
428. Second, if the exception were interpreted to apply only to States,
political subdivisions would be preempted from enforcing laws
legitimately enacted by the State pursuant to the exception. The Court
found it unlikely that Congress would preserve State power to enact
rules but bar routine enforcement through local instrumentalities. Id.
at 435.
    The Agency concludes that the exceptions in Sec.  14506(b) can
apply to New York City's and Cook County's credential display
requirements, if they meet the statutory criteria. The only exception
relevant to ATA's petition is found in Sec.  14506(b)(3); however, no
evidence supports the application of this exception to New York City's
and Cook County's credential display requirements. These display
requirements are unrelated to State vehicle licensing requirements, and
neither jurisdiction articulated any justification for the Agency to
exercise its delegated discretion to approve the display. In fact, the
only jurisdiction to respond to the Agency, Cook County, conceded that
its credential display requirements are preempted by Federal law.
    In consideration of the above, FMCSA grants the petitions submitted
by ATA. New York City, New Jersey, and Cook County are preempted from
imposing and may no longer enforce their credential display
requirements.

    Issued on: October 4, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-26202 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3155-3158]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0927; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-230-AD;
Amendment 39-18068; AD 2014-26-53]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A319-115, A319-133, A320-214, A320-232, and A320-233
airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires repetitive
detailed visual inspections to detect discrepancies of the wing lower
skin surface and inboard main landing gear (MLG) support rib lower
flange location fasteners and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s). This AD was prompted by reports of
failure of certain fasteners located at the wing lower skin surface and
inboard MLG support rib lower flange. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of
the lower wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange, which
could result in an airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected in
service. This condition could result in structural failure.

DATES: This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2014-26-53, issued on December 16, 2014, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication identified in this AD as of February
6, 2015.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0927; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On December 16, 2014, we issued Emergency AD 2014-26-53, which
requires repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect discrepancies
of the wing lower skin surface and inboard MLG support rib lower flange
location fasteners and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s). Corrective actions include fastener
replacement or repair. This emergency AD was sent previously to all
known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0270R1, dated December 15, 2014 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model
A319-115, A319-133, A320-214, A320-232, and A320-233 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    During production of wings, a number of taperlok fasteners were
found failed after installation. The fasteners in question are
located at the bottom skin of the Main Landing Gear (MLG)
reinforcing plate, wing skin and Gear Support Rib 5 lower flange.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected could reduce the
design margin of the structure [and could result in structural
failure].
    Based on the results of the preliminary investigation, this
affects only certain A319 and A320 aeroplane Models delivered since
January 2014. A321 aeroplanes are not affected, as the wing assembly
is done using parallel fasteners. A318 aeroplanes are not affected,
since none have been delivered since January 2014.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2014-0270-E
[dated December 11, 2014] to require repetitive inspections of the
bottom skin taperlok fasteners at the MLG Rib 5 footprint location
and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
action(s).
    Since that AD was issued, operator comments have indicated the
need for clarification, as well as correction.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to add
Notes for information and to correct paragraphs (1) and (2) of the
AD.
    This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action and
further AD action may follow.

Related Service Information

    Airbus has issued Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)
A57N006-14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014. The service
information describes procedures for inspections of the bottom skin
fasteners at the MLG rib 5 footprint location, and replacement of
affected fasteners. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0927.

FAA's Determination and AD Requirements

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0270-E, dated December 11, 2014,
specifies to do repetitive detailed visual inspections of the outboard
MLG support rib lower flange fasteners and nuts. However, these
inspections are not required by this AD. Since the specified compliance
time is four months, we are considering further rulemaking to require
those inspections.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of the lower
wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange could result in an
airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected in-service. This
condition could result in structural failure. Therefore, we find that
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2014-0927 and
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-230-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 80 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost           Parts cost     Cost per product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0   $85 [per            $6,800 [per
                                  hour = $85 [per                           inspection cycle].  inspection
                                  inspection cycle].                                            cycle].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement........................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour  $400 [per fastener]...  $655 [per fastener
                                      = $255 [per fastener                                 replacement].
                                      replacement].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-26-53 Airbus: Amendment 39-18068; Docket No. FAA-2014-0927;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-230-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency
AD 2014-26-53, issued on December 16, 2014, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-115, A319-133, A320-214,
A320-232, and A320-233 airplanes, certificated in any category,
manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 5817, 5826, 5837, 5848, 5855,
5864, 5875, 5886, 5896, and 5910, and MSNs 5918 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of certain fasteners
located at the wing lower skin surface and inboard main landing gear
(MLG) support rib lower flange. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of
the lower wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange, which
could result in an airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected
in-service. This condition could result in structural failure.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Within 8 days after the effective date of this AD, or within 8
days since the date of issuance of the original certificate of
airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness,
or before further flight for any airplane that is not in operation,
whichever occurs later: Do the inspections required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A57N006-14, Revision 00, dated December
4, 2014. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 8 days.
    (1) Do a detailed visual inspection of the external surface of
the left-hand and right-hand wing lower skin surface to detect
missing or broken or migrated fasteners.
    (2) Do a detailed visual inspection of the inboard MLG support
rib lower flange to detect missing or broken nuts or fastener tails.

(h) Corrective Actions for the Inspections Required by Paragraph (g)(1)
of This AD

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, only one discrepancy (any missing or broken or migrated
fastener) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further
flight, do corrective actions in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA. Replacement of fasteners

on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, more than one discrepancy (any missing or broken or
migrated fastener) is found on the left- or right-side: Before
further flight, replace all affected fasteners on the affected
side(s), in accordance with Airbus AOT A57N006-14, Revision 00,
dated December 4, 2014. One fastener per side may be missing or
broken or migrated provided the applicable actions required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD are done. Replacement of fasteners on an
airplane does not constitute terminating action for any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Corrective Actions for the Inspections Required by Paragraph (g)(2)
of This AD

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD, only one discrepancy (any missing or broken nut or fastener
tail) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further flight, do
corrective actions in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA. Replacement of fasteners on an airplane does not
constitute terminating action for any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD, more than one discrepancy (any missing or broken nut or
fastener tail) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further
flight, replace all affected fasteners on the affected side(s), in
accordance with Airbus AOT A57N006-14, Revision 00, dated December
4, 2014. One fastener per side may be missing or broken or migrated
provided the applicable actions required by paragraph (i)(1) of this
AD are done. Replacement of fasteners on an airplane does not
constitute terminating action for any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(k) Other FAA Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Manager, International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    For further information about this AD, contact: Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A57N006-14, Revision 00,
dated December 4, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information referenced in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 7, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00716 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42973-42974]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-41]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; AeroGuard
Flight Training Center

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0435
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can

be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Blatchford,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0435.
    Petitioner: AeroGuard Flight Training Center.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  141.79(d)(1)(ii).
    Description of Relief Sought: AeroGuard Flight Training Center
(AeroGuard) seeks relief from Sec.  141.79(d)(1)(ii) of Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations to allow flight instructors who have
completed proficiency checks for AeroGuard's legacy Chinese Ab-Initio
Program course to count these checks for AeroGuard's three separated
replacement courses.

[FR Doc. 2020-15233 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18105]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0079]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Trent River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
US 70 Alfred Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New
Bern, NC. The deviation is necessary to accommodate cyclists in the
``Cyclist Goin Coastal'' charity event. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position for one-half hour to ensure
safe passage for the cyclists.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 8:30 a.m. on May
5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0079 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0079 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lindsey Middleton, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NC Coastal Land Trust ``Cyclist Goin
Coastal'' Ride Committee on behalf of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating regulation of the US 70 Alfred Cunningham Bascule Bridge
across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The route of the
cycle ride crosses the bridge and the requested deviation is to
accommodate a safe and efficient passage across the bridge for the
cyclists. To facilitate this event, the draw of the bridge will be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for one-half hour; from
8 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, May 5, 2012.
    The vertical clearance for this bridge in the closed position is 14
feet at Mean High Water and unlimited in the open position. The
operating regulations are set forth in 33 CFR 117.843(a) which states
that during this time period the bridge shall open on signal.
    Vessels that can pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The Coast Guard will inform the waterway users of
the closure through our Local Notice to Mariners and other appropriate
local media to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. Most vessel traffic
utilizing this bridge consists of recreational boaters. This closure is
for a small duration of time, therefore, only a small number of boaters
may be affected by the temporary closure. There are no alternate routes
to the Neuse River from the Trent River.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-7128 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8571]
[DOCID:fr17fe06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-216-000]

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

February 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 7, 2006, Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be
effective on March 9, 2006:
    Fourth Revised Sheet No. 66A
    Sixth Revised Sheet No. 67
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and
all parties to the proceeding.
    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 and 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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 14 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 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2272 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55827-55828]
[DOCID:fr26se08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 19, 2008.
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 459-238.
    c. Date Filed: September 10, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ameren/UE.
    e. Name of Project: Osage Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located at the Summer Hill Condominium
development near mile marker 31.2+5.4 in Barnes Hollow Cove on the Lake
of the Ozarks, in Camden County, Missouri.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/
UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: October 20, 2008.
    k. Description of Request: Ameren/UE requests approval to permit
Utley Development Company, LLC, to construct one new, covered, multi-
slip boat dock at the Summer Hill development. The dock would have a
total of 14 boat slips, 12 slips being 32 feet long and 12 feet wide
and two slips being 32 feet long and 10 feet wide and would include a
central 4-foot-wide walkway. The dock would be available to the
residents of the Summer Hill development. No dredging, fuel dispensing,
or sewage pumping facilities are proposed.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also 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 (p-459) to access the document. 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,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-459-238). 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. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22625 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P