[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62750-62751]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1140]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2010-24370 beginning on page 60013 in the
issue of Wednesday, September 28, 2010, make the following corrections:

Sec. 67.4  [Corrected]

    1. On page 60015, in Sec.  67.4, the second table on that page is
corrected to have a centered heading above the row of that table whose
first column entry reads ``Yellowstone River'', which should read
``Park County, Montana, and Incorporated Areas''.
    2. On page 60016, in Sec.  67.4, in the second table on that page,
is corrected to have a centered heading above the row of that table
whose first column entry reads ``Armstrong Creek'', which should read
``Ellis County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-24370 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


Commission reasoned that the requirement of an asset manager to deliver
or purchase gas to fulfill the releasing shipper's supply or marketing
obligations is the cornerstone for differentiating AMAs from standard
capacity releases. In order to ensure that capacity releases posited as
AMAs eligible for the exemptions from tying and bidding are bona fide
AMAs, the Commission must have a means to monitor this critical
component of the arrangement. Accordingly the Commission revised
section 284.13(b)(1) of its regulations to add a new subsection (x)
specifying that a posting of any capacity release meant to implement an
AMA must specify the volumetric level of the replacement shipper's
delivery or purchase obligation and the time periods during which that
obligation is in effect. The Commission also added new subsection (xi)
requiring that a release to a marketer participating in a state
regulated retail access program must be so identified in the posting.
The Commission noted that existing regulations required parties to
identify asset managers and agents in the index of customers. The
Commission further stated that parties are not required to include
commercially sensitive aspects of AMAs. Certain parties seek rehearing
and/or clarification of these parts of Order No. 712.
1. Posting Requirements
    102. Marketer Petitioners request reconsideration concerning the
information required to be posted in connection with a release of
capacity associated with an AMA under Order No. 712.\93\ Marketer
Petitioners submit that the specific days/months during which an AMA
manager's delivery/purchase obligation is in effect should not have to
be posted in the release. Instead, they assert that the fact the
release is associated with an AMA, the identity of the asset manager,
and the fact that the asset manager's delivery/purchase obligation is
for the requisite quantity and time period should be adequate to
demonstrate that the release is associated with a bona fide AMA.
Marketer Petitioners argue that posting the specifics of the delivery/
purchase obligation may result in disclosure of competitive and
commercially sensitive information that will reduce the flexibility of
parties in structuring AMAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Marketer Petitioners at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. The Commission denies the reconsideration request. As noted
above, the Commission in Order No. 712 found that the delivery/purchase
obligation is the foundation for differentiating AMAs from standard
capacity releases, and that the Commission needed a way to accurately
monitor this component of an AMA. Thus the Commission revised its
regulations to include the specifics of what it deemed necessary to
execute this monitoring function. Marketer Petitioners assert that it
is adequate to include the fact that the manager's delivery/purchase
obligation is for the requisite quantity and time period to demonstrate
the validity of the AMA, but they do not state how those facts can be
discerned without information regarding the volumetric level of the
obligation and the time periods that it will be in effect. Further,
Marketer Petitioners claim that posting of specific dates will
potentially result in disclosure of commercially sensitive information
but provide no details as to how such information is commercially
sensitive. The Commission finds that it is important for determining
the validity of bona fide AMAs that it and the public can see and
review the details of how the release qualifies as an AMA under the
definition. The Marketer Petitioners' request is thus denied.
2. Index of Customers
    104. Several parties seek clarification that the Commission did not
intend to amend its regulations pertaining to the Index of
Customers.\94\ They note that in Order No. 712 the Commission revised
certain of its regulations concerning the posting and reporting
requirements for AMAs under the new rule. In that discussion the
Commission stated that ``sections 284.13(c)(2)(viii) and (ix) require
that the pipeline's index of customers include the name of any agent or
asset manager managing a shipper's transportation service and whether
that agent or asset manager is an affiliate of the releasing shipper.''
\95\ The parties point out that the actual language in the referenced
regulation relating to affiliate relationships requires the reporting
on the index of customers of any ``affiliate relationship between the
pipeline and a shipper's asset manager or agent.'' 18 CFR
284.139(c)(2)(ix) (emphasis added). They seek clarification that the
discussion in the preamble is not intended to modify the language of
section 284.13(c)(2)(ix) concerning the Index of Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See, INGAA at 3, Iroquois at 7, Spectra at 38, Williston at
18.
    \95\ Order No. 712 at P 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. The Commission clarifies that the discussion in Order No. 712
inadvertently misstated the regulation and that the Commission did not
intend to change the language or impact of section 284.13(c)(2)(ix),
nor as the parties note, did the Commission make any revisions to that
section in Order No. 712. Therefore, pipelines will not be required to
state in their Index of Customers whether there is an affiliate
relationship between the releasing shipper and its asset manager.
However, the Commission notes that existing section 284.13(b)(ix)
requires that the pipeline's posting of capacity release transactions
include a statement ``whether there is an affiliate relationship
between * * * the releasing and replacement shipper.'' Therefore, the
pipeline's transactional reports will indicate whether the releasing
shipper and any asset manager to which it releases capacity are
affiliated. The Commission also notes that section 284.13(c)(2)(viii)
does require that the index of customers include the name of any agent
or asset

manager managing a shipper's transportation service.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Spectra also requests clarification that the Commission's
statement in P 136 of Order No. 712, stating that the existing
requirements referenced in section 284.13(c)(2)(viii) (Index of
Customers) of the regulations still apply with regard to identifying
asset managers, which was followed by a statement that the
Commission was adding a requirement to post the asset manager's
delivery obligation to the releasing shipper, did not intend to add
any requirements to the index of customers. The Commission so
clarifies. The Commission clearly stated in that paragraph that the
new reporting requirements were ``in addition'' to the existing
requirements under the index of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. INGAA seeks clarification that the posting requirements for
capacity releases under AMAs apply only to capacity releases initiated
and reported to the pipeline after the effective date of Order No. 712.
The Commission so clarifies. Nothing in Order No. 712 indicates that
any provision would take effect retroactively. Further, no capacity
releases to implement AMAs under Order No. 712 are valid until the
effective date of the rule. Accordingly, pipelines need only report
capacity releases that are meant to implement AMAs under Order No. 712
after the effective date of the rule.

E. Miscellaneous AMA Issues

    107. The NGSA requests that the Commission clarify that on days
when the releasing shipper has a right to call upon the asset manager
to deliver or purchase gas under an AMA, the parties may specify a
nomination deadline no earlier than the 8 a.m. on the weekday morning
before gas flows, after which the asset manager may release any
capacity not wanted by the releasing shipper without recall in order to
maximize the value of the capacity.\97\ The NGSA asserts that as
written, Order No. 712 requires the asset manager to provide the
releasing shipper an absolute call on the full contract volume of the
released capacity on every day of the five month minimum period.
According to the NGSA, a strict reading of the shipper's right would
require an asset manager to re-release the capacity subject to recall
during each day of the delivery/purchase obligation period, thereby
limiting the value of the capacity and the AMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ NGSA at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. The NGSA submits that one way to address this issue is for the
Commission to allow the parties to an AMA to agree to a specific
nomination deadline after which the asset manager would be free to
market the capacity without any recall rights. NGSA asserts that
nomination deadlines are regular features of AMAs and may be fixed at
various times depending on the needs of the parties and pipeline
specifications, and that 8 a.m. on the weekday before gas flows is a
commonly used deadline. Under such a scenario, the releasing shipper
may call upon the replacement shipper for the full contract volume
until the nomination deadline. In the event that the releasing shipper
knows the day before, however, that it does not need all or some
portion of the capacity at the nomination deadline, the asset manager
would be free to release the unwanted capacity without any recall
rights, thus maximizing the value of the capacity to the mutual benefit
of both the releasing shipper and the asset manager.
    109. The Commission grants NGSA's clarification request to allow
the parties to an AMA to specify a deadline in their AMA agreement
after which the asset manager may re-release the capacity without
attaching a recall provision. This deadline may be no earlier than 8
a.m. on the weekday before gas flows. As noted by NGSA, allowing the
parties to establish a deadline after which the releasing shipper can
no longer exercise its recall right is consistent with the Commission's
goal of maximizing the value of capacity released pursuant to an AMA.
The Commission finds limiting the ability to determine a deadline to no
earlier than 8 a.m. on the weekday prior to gas flow is reasonable as a
means of providing this flexibility while ensuring that parties do not
utilize the deadline as a means of essentially vitiating the delivery
purchase obligation of the AMA.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ The Commission notes that 8 a.m. on the day before gas
flows is consistent with the current North American Energy Standards
Board (NAESB) standard for notification by the releasing shipper of
a recall of capacity. See NAESB Standard 5.3.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. BP requests clarification that a releasing shipper may include
more capacity in its AMA than it has previously used to supply its
natural gas needs.\99\ BP notes that in Order No. 712 the Commission
supported the delivery/purchase obligation for AMAs by referring to the
fact that an asset manager should be able to reasonably forecast a
releasing shipper's needs based on historical usage. BP contends that
because in nearly all cases shippers acquire capacity for use as a
mechanism for gas supply, a releasing shipper should be able to include
its portfolio of assets making up an AMA transportation capacity that
it owns, not only that capacity historically used to meet past peak day
demands or to transport supply. It asserts that entities on both the
supply and demand side typically purchase and hold capacity in excess
of its historic gas needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ BP at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. The Commission grants the requested clarification. In
referring to an asset manager's ability to make reasonable judgments
about the releasing shipper's demand or supply requirements the
Commission did not in any way limit the capacity that could be included
in an AMA to that reflected by historical usage. A releasing shipper
may include more capacity in an AMA than it has previously used to meet
its needs, provided that the releasing shipper owns that capacity and
that the delivery/purchase obligation in the AMA applies to all the
capacity included in the AMA.
    112. Marketer Petitioners seek clarification that a release of AMA
capacity by an asset manager to another asset manager is eligible for
the exemptions under section 284.8(h)(3) of the regulations.\100\ They
point out that different asset managers have expertise in different
markets, and thus may desire to work cooperatively with other asset
managers to maximize the value of the capacity. One way for this to
occur is for one asset manager to re-release capacity received from the
original releasing shipper to a second asset manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Marketer Petitioners at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    113. The Commission clarifies that an asset manager may release
capacity it obtained as part of an AMA to another asset manager.
Provided each release is made to implement an AMA and satisfies the
delivery/purchase obligation and other criteria in the definition of
AMA, such releases would qualify for the exemptions granted by Order
No. 712 to AMAs.
    114. BP seeks clarification that any entity holding interstate
transportation capacity may enter into an AMA as a releasing shipper,
including wholesale marketers. BP cites to Order No. 712 and the
Commission's statement that the definition adopted in the rule was
meant to be flexible enough so that it ``does not limit the type of
party that can enter into an AMA.'' The Commission grants
clarification. As BP itself points out, the definition was meant to be
flexible enough so as to not limit the type of entities that could take
advantage of AMAs so long as the criteria in the definition are
satisfied.

III. State Mandated Retail Unbundling

    115. In Order No. 712, the Commission determined that capacity
releases by LDCs to implement state approved retail access programs
should be granted the same blanket exemptions from the prohibition
against tying and the bidding requirements as capacity releases made in
the AMA context. The

Commission found that state retail unbundling programs that give retail
end-users a greater choice of suppliers from whom to purchase their gas
provide benefits similar to AMAs. Accordingly, the Commission clarified
in Order No. 712 that the prohibition against tying does not apply to
releases by an LDC to a marketer that agrees to sell gas to the LDC's
retail customers under a state approved retail access program. The
Commission also amended section 284.8(h) in order to provide an
exemption from bidding for such releases. Under Order No. 712, in order
to qualify for the exemption, the capacity release must be used by the
replacement shipper to provide the gas supply requirement of retail
consumers pursuant to a retail access program approved by the state
agency with jurisdiction over the LDC that provides delivery service to
such retail consumers. The Commission also stated that the exemption
does not apply to re-releases made by marketers participating in the
retail access program.
    116. The AGA seeks clarification that consecutive short-term
releases to a marketer participating in a state-regulated retail access
program will not be considered a long-term release subject to the
maximum rate ceiling.\101\ The AGA states that pursuant to the state
approved programs local distribution companies typically release
capacity to the same retail marketers on a monthly or other regular
basis. AGA contends that consecutive short term releases to a retail
marketer under a state approved program are different than long-term
transactions because a retail marketer is generally only eligible to
contract for released capacity to the extent of its market share and
the short term releases often vary with each separate transaction based
on changes to the marketer's share of the retail market or the source
of the released capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ AGA at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. The Commission grants clarification. In the circumstances
described by AGA, consecutive short-term releases to the same marketer
are appropriately treated as separate short-term releases not subject
to the maximum rate ceiling. Marketers taking these releases have no
continuing right to any particular capacity from one release to the
next. Rather, the amount of capacity released to each marketer is
dependent upon their continuing participation in the retail access
program and varies with their market share. There is nothing in the
Commission's current regulations or the revisions in this order that
would lead the Commission to deem such a series of short term releases
under a state program to be a single long-term release.
    118. Marketer Petitioners request that the Commission clarify that
a marketer participating in a state approved retail access program can
re-release its capacity to an asset manager that will fulfill the
marketer's obligations under the state approved program.\102\ The
Commission grants clarification. The statement in Order No. 712 that
the exemptions afforded to marketers participating in state approved
retail access programs did not apply to re-releases made by such
marketers was referring to a re-release that was a standard capacity
release, not a re-release to an asset manager. As clarified above, an
asset manager may re-release to a second asset manager and if the
release satisfies the criteria of the AMA definition, the exemptions
will apply. Likewise, a marketer participating in a state regulated
retail access program may re-release to an asset manager and the second
release will qualify for the exemptions afforded AMAs as long as it
meets the necessary requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Id. See also BP at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. BP seeks clarification that a marketer participating in a
retail unbundling program can use its released capacity to serve
customers who are not subject to the retail access program during
periods when the capacity is not needed to serve retail access
customers. BP contends that such use of excess capacity would
facilitate the efficient use of capacity and put retail access
providers in a position comparable to that of asset managers.
    120. The Commission grants clarification. In establishing the
exemptions for AMAs the Commission found in part that AMAs were
beneficial because they would encourage maximum use of capacity during
periods when it was not needed by the releasing shipper. Similarly,
alternative use of capacity by a marketer participating in a retail
access program during periods when that capacity is not needed to serve
the retail access customers' needs promotes the efficient use of
capacity.
    121. BP also seeks clarification that a wholesale supplier who
obtains capacity directly from an LDC as part of an unbundling program
but who is not a marketer under the program nevertheless qualifies for
the tying and bidding exemptions.\103\ As the Commission understands
this request by BP, it seeks the exemptions afforded to retail access
marketers for a release of capacity to a wholesale supplier, who will
in turn sell gas to the retail access marketer. In other words, BP
seeks the exemption for an entity that is one-step removed from the
situation under which Order No. 712 grants exemptions from tying and
bidding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ BP at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. The Commission declines to grant BP's request in this generic
rulemaking proceeding. As noted, BP requests the Commission to approve
a specific deal structure that does not meet the criteria under which
the rule generally grants exemptions. BP is free to file separately on
a case-by-case basis for approval of individual arrangements that it
believes may merit a waiver of the Commission's bidding and tying
strictures.
    123. Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, Florida (Lake Apopka) filed
a late request for clarification, or reconsideration, requesting the
Commission clarify that the blanket exemptions from tying and bidding
granted for releases made as part of a state approved retail access
program apply equally to self-regulated municipals. Lake Apopka states
that it is a special district created by the state of Florida and
authorized to transport and distribute natural gas to its member
municipalities and to other municipalities. Lake Apopka states that its
rates and terms of service are not subject to regulation by the Florida
Public Service Commission. Lake Apopka currently does not have a retail
access program and provided no information in its pleading as to the
way in which such a program would be structured and whether it would
have protections comparable to state governmental review.
    124. The Commission denies Lake Apopka's request. As noted, the
Commission's bidding requirements and its prohibition against tying are
meant to ensure a transparent, liquid, and non-discriminatory wholesale
energy market. In cases where retail access programs have been reviewed
and approved by state regulators, there is a sound basis to believe
that retail access and wholesale access programs are working toward
common goals of promoting customer choice and competition, subject to
state supervision and oversight. State regulators can review a proposed
program and establish essential conditions to ensure that a local
utility monopoly does not create a retail access program that transfers
its market power to an unregulated affiliate at the expense of local
retail ratepayers and nearby wholesale market competitors.
    125. From the information provided, it appears that these
protections are lacking in the situation described by

Lake Apopka. The Commission's determination in Order No. 712 was not
intended to apply to such wholly unregulated entities and the
Commission declines to revise its regulations to grant a blanket
exemption in this rulemaking proceeding. The Commission is open to
considering waiver requests on this issue on a case-by-case basis if
presented to us in a fully justified proposal.
    126. Vector Pipeline LP (Vector) filed a request for clarification
or in the alternative rehearing asking that the Commission clarify that
Canadian provincial retail unbundling programs will be treated the same
as state unbundling programs under Order No. 712. Vector notes that
Order No. 712's exemption from bidding for state-regulated open access
programs defines a state retail unbundling program as one ``approved by
the state agency with jurisdiction over the local distribution company
that provides delivery service to such retail customers.'' \104\ Vector
states that it does not oppose the exemption but contends that the
Commission should clarify that it also applies to programs authorized
by a province in Canada. Vector states that it has firm shippers on its
system that have participated in a retail unbundling program authorized
by the Province of Ontario and that the Commission has previously
treated such Canadian programs identical to state retail unbundling
programs.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Vector at 1.
    \105\ Id. (citing, Union Gas Ltd., 93 FERC ]61,074 (2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. The Commission grants clarification. As noted by Vector,
during the period when the price cap on short-term releases was removed
pursuant to Order No. 637, the Commission granted Union Gas, a firm
shipper on Vector's system, a waiver of the Commission's posting and
bidding requirements to further its efforts to participate in a
provincial retail unbundling program similar to waivers the Commission
issued for domestic LDCs to participate in state approved retail
unbundling programs during the same period. The Commission finds that
its rationale in equating Canadian provincial retail unbundling
programs with state approved retail access programs for the purposes of
Order No. 637 applies equally to Order No. 712's bidding exemption for
such programs. Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that Canadian
provincial retail unbundling programs will be treated the same as state
unbundling programs for purposes of the bidding exemption for state-
regulated retail unbundling programs under Order No. 712.

IV. Tying of Storage Capacity and Inventory

    128. In Order No. 712, the Commission granted an exception to its
prohibition on tying to allow a releasing shipper to include conditions
in a release concerning the sale and/or repurchase of gas in storage
inventory outside the AMA context. The Commission reasoned that in the
storage context, storage capacity is inextricably attached to the gas
in storage, and that by allowing releasing shippers to condition the
release of storage capacity on the sale and or repurchase of gas in
storage inventory and on there being a certain amount of gas left in
storage at the end of the release, the Commission would enhance the
efficient use of storage capacity while at the same time ensuring that
the releasing shipper would have gas in storage for the winter.
    129. The AGA requests clarification that the exemption from the
tying prohibition applies to other terms and conditions related to the
purchase and sale of storage gas in inventory.\106\ It argues that such
an exemption is akin to the clarification for AMAs that the tying
exemption applies to all other agreements necessary to implement the
agreement.\107\ AGA notes as an example that credit requirements may be
necessary to address the risks associated with transferring substantial
amounts of commodities, particularly storage gas. AGA states that given
the large quantities of gas in storage sought to be transferred and the
high commodity prices in today's marketplace, a bidder that is
creditworthy for purposes of pipeline transportation service may not be
sufficiently creditworthy to provide security for commodity transfers.
AGA suggests that the current creditworthy provisions contained in
pipeline tariffs only cover the risks associated with failure of
shipper to pay for capacity and are likely inadequate to address
commodity transfer risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The Commission in Order No. 712 clarified that if an AMA
meets the essential elements of the definition of AMAs, then the
tying exemption applies to all other agreements necessary to
implement the AMA. Order No. 712 at P 171.
    \107\ AGA at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. The Commission agrees that in the situation where a release of
pipeline capacity is tied to storage inventory, existing pipeline
creditworthy provisions may not be adequate to cover the risks
associated with the transfer of large amounts of storage gas. As the
AGA points out, given the relatively high prices of commodities in
today's natural gas marketplace, a bidder that is creditworthy relative
to the risks associated with pipeline services may not be creditworthy
in terms of being able to secure large quantities of storage gas. The
Commission has recognized elsewhere the difference between the
potential values of pipeline services as opposed to the value of the
commodity.\108\ Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that with regard
to a storage release that includes a condition regarding the sale and/
or repurchase of gas outside the AMA context as authorized by Order No.
712, the parties may negotiate further terms and conditions related to
the commodity portion of the transaction, and such agreements shall not
be subject to the prohibition against tying of extraneous conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See e.g., Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 103 FERC ]61,129,
at 61,422 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    131. BP seeks clarification on several aspects of the storage tying
exception. First, BP seeks clarification that the Commission's
statement that it would allow the releasing shipper to require the
replacement shipper to take title to the gas in storage does not
require that the replacement shipper actually pay the releasing shipper
for gas in storage in situations where the replacement shipper will
return the capacity to the releasing shipper with an equivalent amount
of gas in storage. According to BP parties may make arrangements where
the payment of consideration is deferred until no later than when the
storage capacity is returned to the releasing shipper.
    132. The Commission grants clarification. Order No. 712 is intended
to permit parties flexibility in structuring storage release
arrangements. It is reasonable that these arrangements may at times
involve in-kind transfers of gas in lieu of monetary payments.
    133. BP also requests clarification that when the Commission stated
that it was providing an exception from the tying prohibition to allow
a releasing shipper to include conditions in a release concerning the
sale and/or repurchase of gas in storage inventory even outside the AMA
context, that it did not mean to limit the allowed ties to the examples
provided, i.e., transfer of title to gas in storage and return of a
specified amount of gas. BP asserts that those are only two of the
potential ties between storage capacity and inventory and that other
extraneous conditions exist that contain the same inextricable link
between storage capacity and gas in storage, such as a call option on
gas in storage.\109\ BP

asserts that the Commission should allow ties other than those
specified in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ BP at 7 and n.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. The Commission acknowledges that there may be different means
by which parties may effectuate a transfer of title to the gas in
storage, or that parties may desire, as BP suggests, to allow for an
option for the releasing shipper to require the replacement shipper to
sell the gas in storage back to the releasing shipper if it needs to
use the storage gas. The Commission thus clarifies that parties may
utilize different methods to transfer the title to the gas and may
include such a method as a condition in a combined storage capacity and
inventory release. The Commission's clarification, however, is limited
to ties related to the gas in storage. If parties desire to condition
storage releases on non-commodity related items, then such parties
should file separately with the Commission for approval of those
transactions.
    135. BP also seeks clarification for the following three scenarios
regarding how storage releases that include conditions concerning
storage inventory should be posted for bidding:

    (i) if no pre-arranged replacement shipper exists but the
releasing shipper has established a purchase price for the gas, the
posting for the capacity must include the purchase price and all
bids will be based on an equivalent purchase price so that the
winning replacement shipper will be decided solely upon the
competing bids for the capacity itself;
    (ii) if a pre-arranged shipper exists, the posting will include
the purchase price for the gas offered by the pre-arranged shipper,
and any competing bids must be based on an equivalent purchase price
so that the winning replacement shipper will be decided solely upon
the competing bids for the capacity itself; or
    (iii) if no purchase price has been established by the releasing
shipper and/or offered by a pre-arranged shipper, the posting will
indicate that the winning bid will be based solely upon the offers
made on the capacity itself, along with a condition subsequent
providing that the parties will mutually agree on a purchase price
for the gas after the award.

    136. BP states that in situation (iii), if the parties are unable
to mutually agree upon a price, the award will be voided and the
capacity may be re-posted by the releasing shipper.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ BP at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. BP asserts that if the condition on the replacement shipper is
the purchase of remaining gas in storage, then the consideration to be
paid for the capacity and the price of the gas both become economic
factors for the transaction. BP states that the intent of its request
for clarification of the examples is to make the capacity the only
economic factor to be evaluated for purposes of competitive bidding.
    138. The Commission agrees with BP that the only factor that should
be considered for competitive bidding purposes in the context where
storage capacity is tied to storage inventory is the capacity. This is
because the bidding requirements in the Commission's regulations only
apply to capacity releases and must result in a rate that the
replacement shipper will pay to the pipeline for services using the
released capacity. With regard to how releases with conditions
concerning storage inventory may be posted, Commission policy allows
releasing shippers to include in capacity release postings reasonable
and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, provided that all such
terms and conditions are posted on the pipeline's EBB, are objectively
stated, are applicable to all potential bidders, and relate solely to
the details of acquiring capacity on interstate pipelines.\111\ BP's
first two suggestions for posting scenarios appear consistent with
these requirements. The third, however, could be problematic in light
of the fact that the commodity price would not be posted or objectively
stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Order No. 636-B at 61,996 (citing Order No. 636-A at
30,557).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Liquefied Natural Gas

    139. In Order No. 712, the Commission rejected a request that
parties be allowed to link throughput agreements and/or sales of gas at
the outlet of an NGA Section 3 liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal
with a prearranged capacity release on an interstate pipeline connected
to the terminal, akin to the exemption for AMAs that allows the tying
of released capacity to gas sales agreements. Several parties \112\ had
argued that LNG importers often hold firm capacity on interstate
pipelines adjacent to the terminals to ensure that re-gasified LNG can
exit the terminal efficiently and be transported to the markets on the
interstate pipeline grid. The requesting parties suggested that the
Commission should recognize and permit the natural link between an LNG
terminal throughput agreement and an agreement to release downstream
pipeline capacity and clarify that such a tie is permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Statoil and Shell LNG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. The Commission declined to grant the LNG importers' request in
Order No. 712. The Commission noted that Order No. 712 permitted the
use of supply side AMAs and that LNG importers holding firm capacity on
interstate pipelines connected to an LNG terminal were free to use a
supply AMA. The Commission also found that the requesters had not
provided adequate detail on the types of transactions for which they
were requesting the exemptions to explain why a further exemption
beyond that provided for supply AMAs is required for LNG facilities,
and that it was unclear from their comments how far downstream they
sought to have the exemption apply. The Commission also found that the
record was insufficient to evaluate the possible benefits of the
requested exemption or the effect on open access competition that such
an exemption might have. The Commission stated that it was open to
considering waiver requests on the issue on a case-by-case basis if
presented to it in a fully justified proposal.
    141. Several parties seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
The LNG Petitioners argue that the Commission erred in declining to
grant the requested clarification that it would be a permissible tie
for permit holders of capacity at an LNG terminal to link throughput
agreements and/or sales of gas at the outlet of an LNG terminal with a
pre-arranged capacity release on an interstate pipeline directly
connected to the LNG terminal, or alternatively to provide an exemption
for such transactions.\113\ They also contend that the Commission erred
by not granting an exemption from bidding for capacity releases
included in such transaction. They assert the Commission erred further
by concluding that LNG and pipeline capacity holders could instead use
supply side AMAs, and that it was unreasonable for the Commission to
grant tying and bidding exemptions for releases to implement AMAs and
retail state unbundling programs but not for LNG capacity holders.
Shell LNG makes similar arguments and the NGSA states that the
exemption should be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ In earlier comments the LNG Petitioners had requested only
an exemption from the prohibition against tying. In their rehearing
request, they now also seek an exemption from bidding because Order
No. 712 removed the rate ceiling for short term releases. LNG
Petitioners at 7, n. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. The LNG Petitioners state that they have contracts with the
owners of U.S. LNG terminals to use the capacity of those terminals to
receive, store and regasify LNG. The LNG Petitioners also hold
transportation capacity on open access interstate pipelines directly
connected to the LNG terminal. Some of the terminals provide open
access service pursuant to part 284 of the Commission's regulations.
Other terminals are not open access, as

permitted by the Commission's Hackberry policy.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C., 101 FERC ] 61,294 (2002)
(Hackberry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    143. The LNG Petitioners explain that they have been unable to
enter into long-term contracts to purchase enough LNG from LNG
suppliers, so that the LNG Petitioners can use their terminal and
pipeline capacity for their own LNG. However, they assert that some LNG
suppliers, including state-owned gas and oil companies and European and
Asian utilities with significant natural gas reserves, are willing to
negotiate arrangements under which the LNG Petitioners would, in
essence, release both their terminal and interstate pipeline capacity
to the LNG suppliers. The LNG suppliers would then use that capacity to
import their own LNG into the United States, and they or their
marketing affiliates would resell the regasified LNG in the downstream
U.S. natural gas market. The LNG suppliers' use of the capacity would
be sporadic, because it would depend on whether spot market gas prices
and demand in competing markets justifies importing a particular LNG
cargo into the U.S. The LNG Petitioners do not state what the term of
these arrangements is likely to be, but it would appear that at least
some of these arrangements would be for terms of between 31 days and
one year, and thus would not qualify for the exemptions from bidding
for either short term releases of 31 days or less or the exemption for
maximum rate releases of more than a year.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The removal of the price cap for all releases of one year
or less means that all releases of more than 31 days and less than a
year must be posted for bidding, unless they are made as part of an
AMA or retail access program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. The LNG Petitioners and others contend that the above
described transactions generally cannot be structured as supply side
AMAs. They state that the traditional AMA model, where the releasing
shipper is releasing capacity to an expert that will help to manage
capacity that the releasing shipper still needs to serve its own supply
function, does not fit their situation. In the context of the tying and
bidding exemptions requested for LNG the terminal capacity holder is
not seeking to have a third party manage or market that capacity.
Rather, the capacity holder is attempting to demonstrate to the LNG
supplier firm takeaway capacity from the LNG terminal so that the
supplier will not strand its gas in the terminal. Therefore, they
assert that the Commission's amendment of its regulations to permit
supply side AMAs is not an adequate substitute for the exemptions they
seek.
    145. The Commission clarifies that with respect to LNG terminals
providing open access service, where both the LNG terminal and the
directly connected interstate pipeline are facilities subject to the
Commission's Part 284 open access regulations, a holder of capacity in
the LNG terminal has the right to release both its terminal capacity
and its capacity on the downstream pipeline pursuant to the
Commission's capacity release program. As the Commission stated in
Order No. 712, existing Commission policy permits releasing shippers to
tie releases of upstream and downstream capacity, and requires the
replacement shipper to take a release of the aggregated contracts on
both pipelines.\116\ Thus, existing policy permits the holder of
capacity in an open access LNG terminal to require a replacement
shipper to take a release of both its terminal capacity and its
pipeline capacity. In addition, even if the releases were not made as
part of an AMA, the tied releases would be exempt from bidding if they
qualified for either of the standard bidding exemptions of section
284.8(h) for releases of 31 days or less or prearranged releases to an
LNG supplier for more than a year at the maximum rate. However, if the
release were for a term of between 31 days and a year, the LNG capacity
holder would have to post for third party bids any prearranged tied
release with an LNG supplier. That is necessary to ensure that the tied
release is made to the person placing the highest value on the subject
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Order No. 712 at P 127 n.123 (citing, Order No. 636-A at
30,558 and n. 144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. The Commission denies rehearing, however, with respect to non-
open access LNG terminals. Such terminals are not subject to the
Commission's open access policy, and any releases or assignments of
terminal capacity would not be made pursuant to the Commission's
capacity release program. Thus, there is no Commission process to
ensure that a release of terminal capacity would be non-discriminatory
and transparent. As noted by the LNG Petitioners, transfers of terminal
capacity may be accomplished in a myriad of ways depending on the
specifics of the agreements between the terminal owners and the
capacity holders, including through a buy/sell arrangement. Thus, the
Commission continues to lack sufficient knowledge about how the
arrangements for use of a non-open access terminal may be structured to
permit a generic decision in this rulemaking proceeding. Nor do we have
a sufficient record at this time to evaluate the possible benefits of
such an exemption or the effect on open access competition that such an
exemption may have. Accordingly, the Commission does not find it
reasonable to grant the requested blanket exemptions from tying and
bidding in this rulemaking proceeding in the context of a non-open
access LNG terminal. As stated in Order No. 712, the Commission is open
to considering waiver requests for such transactions on a case-by-case
basis if presented to it in a fully justified proposal.

VI. Information Collection Statement

    147. Order No. 712 contains information collection requirements for
which the Commission obtained approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The OMB Control Number for this collection of
information is 1902-0169. This order generally denies requests for
rehearing and clarifies certain provisions of Order No. 712. This order
does not make substantive modifications to the Commission's information
collection requirements and, accordingly, OMB approval for this order
is not necessary. However, the Commission will send a copy of this
order to OMB for informational purposes.

VII. Document Availability

    148. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    149. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    150. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    151. These regulations will become effective December 31, 2008.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf, Natural gas, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

0
2. Amend Sec.  284.8 as follows:
0
a. Paragraphs (b) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  284.8  Release of firm capacity on interstate pipelines.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) Firm shippers must be permitted to release their capacity,
in whole or in part, on a permanent or short-term basis, without
restriction on the terms or conditions of the release. A firm shipper
may arrange for a replacement shipper to obtain its released capacity
from the pipeline. A replacement shipper is any shipper that obtains
released capacity.
    (2) The rate charged the replacement shipper for a release of
capacity may not exceed the applicable maximum rate, except that no
rate limitation applies to the release of capacity for a period of one
year or less if the release is to take effect on or before one year
from the date on which the pipeline is notified of the release.
Payments or other consideration exchanged between the releasing and
replacement shippers in a release to an asset manager as defined in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section are not subject to the maximum rate.
* * * * *
    (h)(1) The following releases need not comply with the bidding
requirements of paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section:
    (i) A release of capacity to an asset manager as defined in
paragraph (h)(4) of this section;
    (ii) A release of capacity to a marketer participating in a state-
regulated retail access program as defined in paragraph (h)(5) of this
section;
    (iii) A release for more than one year at the maximum tariff rate;
and
    (iv) A release for any period of 31 days or less.
    (v) If a release is exempt from bidding under paragraph (h)(1) of
this section, notice of the release must be provided on the pipeline's
Internet Web site as soon as possible, but not later than the first
nomination, after the release transaction commences.
    (2) When a release of capacity is exempt from bidding under
paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section, a firm shipper may not roll over,
extend or in any way continue the release to the same replacement
shipper using the 31 days or less bidding exemption until 28 days after
the first release period has ended. The 28-day hiatus does not apply to
any re-release to the same replacement shipper that is posted for
bidding or that qualifies for any of the other exemptions from bidding
in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (3) A release to an asset manager exempt from bidding requirements
under paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section is any pre-arranged release
that contains a condition that the releasing shipper may call upon the
replacement shipper to deliver to, or purchase from, the releasing
shipper a volume of gas up to 100 percent of the daily contract demand
of the released transportation or storage capacity, as provided in
paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(iii) of this paragraph.
    (i) If the capacity release is for a period of one year or less,
the asset manager's delivery or purchase obligation must apply on any
day during a minimum period of the lesser of five months (or 155 days)
or the term of the release.
    (ii) If the capacity release is for a period of more than one year,
the asset manager's delivery or purchase obligation must apply on any
day during a minimum period of five months (or 155 days) of each
twelve-month period of the release, and on five-twelfths of the days of
any additional period of the release not equal to twelve months.
    (iii) If the capacity release is a release of storage capacity, the
asset manager's delivery or purchase obligation need only be up to 100
percent of the daily contract demand under the release for storage
withdrawals or injections, as applicable.
    (4) A release to a marketer participating in a state-regulated
retail access program exempt from bidding requirements under paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) of this section is any prearranged capacity release that
will be utilized by the replacement shipper to provide the gas supply
requirement of retail consumers pursuant to a retail access program
approved by the state agency with jurisdiction over the local
distribution company that provides delivery service to such retail
consumers.

[FR Doc. E8-28217 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27215-27216]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12686-004]

Baker County Oregon; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing
and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12686-004.
    c. Date Filed: April 30, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Baker County, Oregon (Baker County).
    e. Name of Project: Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on the Powder
River, at the existing U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Mason
Dam, near Baker City, in Baker County, Oregon. The project would occupy
6.4 acres of federal land managed by Reclamation and the U.S. Forest
Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Fred Warner Jr., Baker County Board of
Commissioners Chairman, 1995 Third Street, Baker City, OR 97814, (541)
523-8200.
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (202)
502-8434.
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The proposed project facilities
include: (1) A 6-foot diameter, 105-foot-long steel penstock; (2) a 40-
foot by 28-foot powerhouse containing a single horizontal shaft Francis
turbine with an installed capacity of 3.4 megawatts; (3) an
approximately 0.8-mile-long, 12.47-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission
line along Black Mountain Road; (4) a substation at the interconnection
point with an existing Idaho Power Company 138-kV transmission line;
and (5) appurtenant facilities.
    The proposed project's generation would not change the current day-
to-day operation of Mason dam but would operate utilizing flood
control, irrigation, and instream flow releases from Mason dam and
established under existing agreements between the Reclamation, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and/or the Baker Valley Irrigation District.
Generation flow discharge would be delivered to the Powder River at the
base of Mason dam in the vicinity of the exiting discharge via the
project's tailrace.
    Baker County estimates that the average annual generation would be
about 7,510 megawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready  July 1, 2013.
 for Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations,            August 28, 2013.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA..........  February 24, 2014.
Comments on Draft EA................  March 26, 2014.
Modified Terms and Conditions.......  April 25, 2014.
Commission Issues Final EA or EIS...  July 24, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11047 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43634-43636]
[DOCID:fr27au09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0174; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-03-AD;
Amendment 39-15997; AD 2009-18-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -
5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/
P; -5B9/P; -5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -
5B8/3; -5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for CFM
International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/
P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P; -5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -
5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -5B8/3; -5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1
turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive eddy current
inspections (ECIs) of certain part number (P/N) low-pressure (LP)
turbine rear frames. This AD results from a refined lifing analysis by
the engine manufacturer that shows the need to identify initial and
repetitive inspection thresholds for inspecting certain LP turbine rear
frames. We are issuing this AD to detect low-cycle-fatigue cracks in
the LP turbine rear frame, which could result in an engine separating
from the airplane, causing damage to, and possibly leading to loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 1, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations as of October 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from CFM International, Technical Publications Department, 1 Neumann
Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (513) 552-
2816.
    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Sheely, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD and a supplemental proposed AD. The proposed AD
applies to CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/
P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; and -5B9/P
turbofan engines, and the supplemental proposed AD applies to CFM
International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/
P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P; -5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -
5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -5B8/3; -5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1
turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register
on May 7, 2008 (73 FR 25597). That action proposed to require initial
and repetitive ECIs of certain P/N LP turbine rear frames. We published
the supplemental proposed AD in the Federal Register on April 24, 2009
(74 FR 18662). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive
ECIs of those same P/N LP turbine rear frames, to add two additional P/
N LP turbine rear frames, to add 11 engine models to the applicability,
and to clarify the commercial and corporate engines/LP turbine rear
frames applicability.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment received.
    One commenter, CFM International, S.A. requests that we reference
the latest European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2009-0110, dated May 7,
2009, as it is up-to-date on P/Ns and engine models affected.
    We agree and changed the AD to reference AD 2009-0110.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 282 CFM56-5B series turbofan
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it
will take about 3 work-hours to perform an eddy current inspection of
an LP turbine rear frame. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
A replacement LP turbine rear frame costs about $102,240. If all 282 LP
turbine rear frames needed replacement, we estimate the total cost of
the AD to U.S. operators to be $28,899,360. Our cost estimate is
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration 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:

2009-18-01 CFM International, S.A.: Amendment 39-15997. Docket No.
FAA-2008-0174; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-03-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
1, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to:
    (1) CFM International, S.A. turbofan engines with a low-pressure
(LP) turbine rear frame, part number (P/N) 338-171-703-0; 338-171-
704-0; 338-171-705-0; or 338-171-706-0 installed, as follows:
    (i) Commercial application CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1;
-5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P turbofan
engines.
    (ii) Corporate application CFM56-5B6/P and -5B7/P turbofan
engines.
    (2) CFM International, S.A. turbofan engines with an LP turbine
rear frame, P/N 338-171-751-0; or 338-171-752-0 installed, on
corporate and commercial applications of CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/
P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P;
-5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -5B8/3; -
5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1 turbofan engines.
    (3) These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a refined lifing analysis by the engine
manufacturer that shows the need to identify initial and repetitive
inspection thresholds for inspecting certain LP turbine rear frames.
We are issuing this AD to detect low-cycle-fatigue cracks in the LP
turbine rear frame, which could result in an engine separating from
the airplane, causing damage to, and possibly leading to loss of
control of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Initial Inspection

    (f) Perform an initial eddy current inspection (ECI) of the LP
turbine rear frame using paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7)(d) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of CFM International, S.A. Service
Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision 2, dated December
1, 2008, at the following compliance times:
    (1) For commercial engine applications, within 25,000 cycles-
since-new (CSN) on the LP turbine rear frame.
    (2) For corporate engine applications, within 19,000 CSN on the
LP turbine rear frame.
    (3) For engines with unknown LP turbine rear frame CSN, within
300 cycles-in-service from the effective date of this AD.

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Perform repetitive ECIs of the LP turbine rear frame using
paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7)(d) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of CFM International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620,
Revision 2, dated December 1, 2008. Use the inspection intervals in
paragraph 3.A.(8) of the Accomplishment Instructions of CFM
International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision 2, dated
December 1, 2008.

LP Turbine Rear Frame Removal Criteria

    (h) Remove LP turbine rear frames from service that have a
single crack length of 2.56 inches (65 mm) or longer, or multiple
cracks with an accumulated crack length of 2.56 inches (65 mm) or
longer.

Previous Credit

    (i) Initial and repetitive inspections done before the effective
date of this AD using CFM International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B
72-0620, dated May 3, 2007, or SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision
1, dated December 20, 2007, comply with the initial and repetitive
inspection requirements specified in this AD. Operators must
continue performing the repetitive inspections required in paragraph
(g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2009-0110, dated May 7,
2009, also addresses the subject of this AD.
    (l) Contact Stephen Sheely, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use CFM International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-
0620, Revision 2, dated December 1, 2008 to perform the inspections
required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact CFM
International, Technical Publications Department, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the
FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/
cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 17, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20284 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41274-41277]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1067; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-231-AD;
Amendment 39-17444; AD 2013-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
DASSAULT AVIATION Model FALCON 2000, FALCON 2000EX, MYSTERE-FALCON 900,
and FALCON 900EX airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports that collapse of the main landing gear
(MLG) could cause wing tank structure failure, which could result in
fuel spillage and consequent fire hazard. This AD requires modification
of the wing fuel tanks in the area of the wheel well. We are issuing
this AD to prevent fuel spillage in the event of a MLG collapse, and
consequent fire hazard.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 14, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 14,
2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, 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

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2012 (77
FR 61539). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) states:

    In service experience has shown that, in case of main landing
gear collapse due to overloads during take off or landing (e.g.,
during high-speed runway excursions), the wing tank structure can
fail, leading to fuel spillage. . . .
    This condition, if not corrected, could result, in case of main
landing gear collapse, in a fuel spillage which may constitute a
fire hazard.
    To address this unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation have
developed a structural modification of the wing fuel tanks in the
area of the wheel well which introduces a dry bay by adding a sealed
boundary in front of the rear spar between ribs 4 and 5.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD [2011-0193, dated October 5, 2011] requires
accomplishment of the above-mentioned modification for the Right
Hand (RH) and Left Hand (LH) wing fuel tanks.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request for Updated Service Information

    Dassault Aviation requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 61539,
October 10, 2012) to reference Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F900-388, Revision 3, dated October 19, 2011. (We referred to Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010,
as the appropriate source of service information for certain airplanes
for accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (g) of the
NPRM.)
    We agree. Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 3,
dated October 19, 2011, clarifies the placard instructions for certain
airplanes. We have updated the reference in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD
to Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 3, dated
October 19, 2011. We have also added paragraph (h)(3)(iii) to this AD
to allow credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD
using Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 2, dated
March 10, 2010.

Request for Clarification of Credit Service Bulletin

    Tidewater Inc. stated it has already complied with Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, dated July 6, 2009, and
requested we take that into consideration. The commenter noted that
Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, Revision 3, dated
March 10, 2010, states that Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F2000EX-171, Revision 1, dated October 22, 2009; Revision 2, dated
February 15, 2010; and Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010; are not
applicable to aircraft already modified as specified in the original
service bulletin.
    We agree to clarify. Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-
171, Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010, does specifically state that
Revision 3 is ``not applicable to aircraft already changed per the
original issue or revision 1 or revision 2.'' Also, as proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 61539, October 10, 2012), paragraph (h) of this AD states
that credit is allowed for actions done before the effective date of
this AD using certain service information, including Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, dated July 6, 2009; Revision 1, dated
October 22, 2009; and Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010; as specified
in

paragraph (h)(5) of this AD. No change has been made to the AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 61539, October 10, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 61539, October 10, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 753 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 640 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $18,500 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $54,893,700, or $72,900 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 61539, October 10,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 AD:

2013-09-03 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-17444. Docket No. FAA-
2012-1067; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-231-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 14,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX
airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which modification
M3072 has been installed.
    (2) DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, all
serial numbers.
    (3) DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 and FALCON 900EX
airplanes, all serial numbers, except those on which modification
M5413 has been installed.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that collapse of the main
landing gear (MLG) could cause wing tank structure failure, which
could result in fuel spillage and a consequent fire hazard. We are
issuing this AD to prevent fuel spillage in the event of a MLG
collapse, and consequent fire hazard.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 150 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
modification of the right-hand and left-hand wing fuel tanks, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable. The service information
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD contains a
paragraph which states that each person applying the service
bulletins must have successfully completed a training program. This
training is recommended, but is not required by this AD.
    (1) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F50-496, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010, which
includes the following appendices:
    (i) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (ii) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (iii) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (iv) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (v) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (2) For Model FALCON 900EX airplanes: Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F900EX-329, Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010, which
includes the following appendices:
    (i) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (ii) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (iii) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;

    (iv) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (v) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes: Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 3, dated October 19, 2011, which
includes the following appendices:
    (i) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (ii) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (iii) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (iv) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (v) Appendix 5, Revision 4, dated October 19, 2011.
    (4) For Model FALCON 2000 airplanes: Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F2000-358, Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010, which includes
the following appendices:
    (i) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (ii) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (iii) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (iv) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (v) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (5) For Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes: Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010,
which includes the following appendices:
    (i) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (ii) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (iii) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (iv) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (v) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the modifications required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information (which is
not incorporated by reference in this AD) specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (h)(5) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F50-496, dated October
30, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 2, dated October 22, 2009.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F50-496, Revision 1,
dated February 15, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (2) For Model FALCON 900EX airplanes:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-329, dated
September 25, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, dated July 6, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, dated July 6, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, dated July 6, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 1, dated September 24, 2009.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-329, Revision 1,
dated October 30, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 2, dated October 22, 2009.
    (iii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-329, Revision
2, dated February 15, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 201;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, dated October
30, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 2, dated October 22, 2009.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 1,
dated February 15, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (iii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 2,
dated March 10, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (4) For Model FALCON 2000 airplanes:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000-358, dated
September 25, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, dated July 6, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, dated July 6, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, dated July 6, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 1, dated September 24, 2009.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000-358, Revision 1,
dated October 30, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 2, dated October 22, 2009.
    (iii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000-358, Revision 2,
dated February 15, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (5) For Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, dated July
6, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, dated July 6, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, dated July 6, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, dated July 6, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, dated July 6, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, dated July 6, 2009.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, Revision
1, dated October 22, 2009, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2009;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 2, dated October 22, 2009.

    (iii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, Revision
2, dated February 15, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-
0193, dated October 5, 2011, for related information. This MCAI may
be viewed on the Internet at http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0193.pdf.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by referenced may be obtained at the addresses
specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) 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) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F50-496, Revision 2,
dated March 10, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-329, Revision 3,
dated March 10, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (iii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-388, Revision 3,
dated October 19, 2011, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 4, dated October 19, 2011.
    (iv) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000-358, Revision 3,
dated March 10, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (v) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-171, Revision 3,
dated March 10, 2010, which includes the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1, Revision 2, dated February 15, 2010;
    (B) Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2009;
    (C) Appendix 3, Revision 2, dated October 21, 2009;
    (D) Appendix 4, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2009; and
    (E) Appendix 5, Revision 3, dated February 15, 2010.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 April 23, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-15141 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P