[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2391-2394]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1072; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-164-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-03-
04, for certain Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2012-03-04
currently requires, for certain airplanes, modifying the wire routing
and installing additional protective sleeves. Since we issued AD 2012-
03-04, we received reports of new interferences of newly routed wire
bundle 2S. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD
2012-03-04, and would require additional work for certain airplanes. We
are proposing this AD to prevent short circuits leading to arcing, and
possible fuel tank explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 28,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
1072; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-1072;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-164-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 26, 2012, we issued AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945
(77 FR 21397, April 10, 2012). AD 2012-03-04 required actions intended
to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397,
April 10, 2012), we received reports of new interferences of newly
routed wire bundle 2S.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0188, dated September 19, 2012 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety Program (FSSP),
analyses of the wire routing showed that the route 2S of the fuel
electrical circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing ensures insufficient
segregation between fuel quantity indication wires and the 115 Volts
Alternating Current (VAC) wires of route 2S which could, under
certain conditions, lead to a short circuit and subsequent arcing,
creating a potential ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space.
    This condition, if not detected, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DGAC France issued
[an] AD * * * to require improvements of the design as specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-28-2148 original issue or Revision
01. EASA AD 2007-0230 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0230_Superseded.pdf/AD_2007-0230_1)], which superseded [a]
DGAC France AD * * *, [which] required those same actions, plus
additional work 1, as defined in Airbus SB A310-28-2148 Revision 02.
    Since EASA AD 2007-0230 was issued, an operator reported the
possibility of chafing between the new routing of the wire bundle 2S
in the RH wing pylon area and the wire bundle of No. 2 engine
generator. The modification of this zone was introduced by Airbus SB
A310-28-2148 Revision 02 as additional work 1. Investigation results
showed that, to avoid the risk of chafing, the affected wiring
harnesses must be installed at a higher position to provide
sufficient clearance with the newly routed wire bundle 2S conduit.
    Airbus published Revision 03 of SB A310-28-2148 to implement
these changes as additional work 2. Subsequently, a new potential
interference due to insufficient clearance was found, which prompted
Airbus to issue SB A310-28-2148 Revision 04.
    Prompted by these findings and actions, EASA issued AD 2011-0005
[(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0005_Superseded.pdf/AD_2011-0005_1)], retaining the requirements of
EASA AD 2007-0230, which was superseded, and required the additional
work 2 as specified in Revisions 03 and 04 of Airbus SB A310-28-
2148.
    Since EASA AD 2011-0005 was issued, several operators of
aeroplanes not having been modified in-service through Airbus SB
A310-36-2015, or without having Airbus modification 07633 applied in
production, reported to have embodied Airbus SB A310-28-2148 at
Revision 02 or Revision 03 on the aeroplane. However, the adequate
instructions to avoid the new interferences were only introduced in
Airbus SB A310-28-2148 Revision 04.
    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2011-0005, which is superseded, and
requires, for certain aeroplanes, the additional work 3 [segregating
wire route 2S in the RH pylon area or modifying the wire routings]
as defined in Airbus SB A310-28-

2148 Revision 06. As SB A310-28-2148 Revision 07 was issued to
clarify the additional work 1, 2 and 3 [segregating wire route 2S in
the RH pylon area or modifying the wire routings] for aeroplanes
that have previously embodied that SB at original issue, Revision 01
or Revision 02, this AD also clarifies the required additional work.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-1072.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision
07, dated February 13, 2012. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

Change to AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10,
2012)

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2012-03-04,
Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10, 2012). Since AD 2012-03-04
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph designators
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Designators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2012-03-04,
 Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397,    Corresponding  requirement in this
          April 10, 2012)                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 paragraph (h)                       paragraph (l)(1)
 paragraph (i)                       paragraph (h)
 paragraph (j)                       paragraph (i)
 paragraph (k)                       paragraph (j)
 paragraph (l)                       paragraph (k)
 paragraph (m)                       paragraph (l)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, we have revised certain paragraphs of AD 2012-03-04,
Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10, 2012), by placing the
required service information into sub-paragraphs in this proposed AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification [retained actions from AD  62 work-hours x $85 per           $2,210          $7,480        $306,680
 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR   hour = $5,270.
 21397, April 10, 2012)].
Modification (additional work) [new     32 work-hours x $85 per            1,100           3,820         156,620
 proposed action].                       hour = $2,720.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-1072; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
164-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 28, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR
21397, April 10, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all certified models, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of new interferences of newly
routed wire bundle 2S. We are issuing this AD to prevent short
circuits leading to arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification of Routing Wires With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the modification required by paragraph
(g) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10,
2012), with revised service information. For all airplanes except
airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision
02, dated March 9, 2007, has been done (Airbus Modifications 12427
and 12435): Within 4,000 flight hours after September 3, 2004 (the
effective date of AD 2004-15-16, Amendment 39-13750 (69 FR 45578,
July 30, 2004)), modify the routing of wires in the right-hand (RH)
wing by installing cable sleeves. Do the modification as per the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), or (g)(5) of this AD. As
of February 20, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-01-05, Amendment
39-15330 (73 FR 2795, January 16, 2008)), only the service
information specified in paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and
(g)(5) of this AD may be used. As of May 15, 2012 (the effective
date of AD 2012-03-04), only the service information specified in
paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(5) of this AD may be used. As of
the effective date of this AD, only the service bulletin specified
in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD may be used.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated
October 29, 2002.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated
March 9, 2007.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05,
dated August 3, 2010.
    (4) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06,
dated August 31, 2011.
    (5) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 07,
dated February 13, 2012.

(h) Retained Modification of Protection Sleeves With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the modification required by paragraph
(i) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77 FR 21397, April 10,
2012), with revised service information. For airplanes on which the
actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated
January 23, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision
01, dated October 29, 2002; have been done before February 20, 2008
(the effective date of AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR
2795, January 16, 2008)), except for airplanes on which Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, has
been done (Airbus Modifications 12427 and 12435): Within 6,000
flight hours or 30 months after February 20, 2008 (the effective
date of AD 2008-01-05), whichever occurs first, perform further
modification by installing additional protection sleeves in the
outer wing area near the cadensicon sensor and segregating wire
route 2S in the RH pylon area, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of service information specified in paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD. As of May 15, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-03-04), only the service information
specified in paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD may be
used. As of the effective date of this AD, only the service bulletin
specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD may be used.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated
March 9, 2007.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05,
dated August 3, 2010.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06,
dated August 31, 2011.
    (4) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 07,
dated February 13, 2012.

(i) Retained New Modification/Installation of Wire Routings for Certain
Airplanes With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the new modification/installation
required by paragraph (j) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77
FR 21397, April 10, 2012), with revised service information. For
airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, have been
accomplished, and do not have production modification 07633; and on
which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 has not been done: Within
6,000 flight hours or 30 months after May 15, 2012 (the effective
date of AD 2012-03-04), whichever occurs first, modify the wire
routings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3)
of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only the service
bulletin specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD may be used.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05,
dated August 3, 2010.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06,
dated August 31, 2011.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 07,
dated February 13, 2012.

(j) Retained New Modification/Installation of Bracket for Certain Other
Airplanes With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the new modification/installation
required by paragraph (k) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77
FR 21397, April 10, 2012), with revised service information. For
airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, have been
accomplished, and have production modification 07633; or on which
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 has been done: Within 1,000
flight hours after May 15, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-03-
04), install a modified bracket, in accordance with paragraph
3.B.(7), ``Additional Work 2,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions
of the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or
(j)(3) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only the
service bulletin specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD may be
used.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05,
dated August 3, 2010.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 06,
dated August 31, 2011.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 07,
dated February 13, 2012.

(k) Retained Modification/Installation Provision for Certain Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the modification/installation provision
specified in paragraph (l) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77
FR 21397, April 10, 2012). For airplanes on which the actions
specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 03,
dated June 2, 2009, have been accomplished; and have modification
07633 done in production; or on which the actions specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 have been done; no further
action is required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD.

(l) Retained Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit for previous actions
required by paragraph (h) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77
FR 21397, April 10, 2012). This paragraph provides credit for the
modification of the routing of wires required by paragraph (g) of AD
2012-03-04, if the modification was performed before September 3,
2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-15-16, Amendment 39-13750 (69 FR
45578, July 30, 2004)), using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148,
dated January 23, 2002.
    (2) This paragraph restates the credit for previous actions
required by paragraph (m) of AD 2012-03-04, Amendment 39-16945 (77
FR 21397, April 10, 2012). This paragraph provides credit for
modifications required by paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (k) of AD
2012-03-04, if the modifications were performed before May 15, 2012
(the effective date of AD 2012-03-04), using Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 04, dated April 14, 2010.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Additional Work 2 and 3

    For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, have been
accomplished, and on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-36-2015 have not been done; or have Airbus
Modification 07633 done in production: Within 1,000 flight hours or
12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, do the modification, in accordance with paragraphs
``Additional Work 2'' and ``Additional Work 3'' of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-28-2148, Revision 07, dated February 13, 2012.

(n) New Requirement of This AD: Additional Work 3

    For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 03, dated June 2, 2009, have been
accomplished, and do not have production modification 07633 or
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 has not been done: Within 1,000
flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, do the modification, in accordance with
paragraph ``Additional Work 3'' of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 07,
dated February 13, 2012.

(o) New Requirement of This AD: Additional Work 1 and 2

    For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-36-2015 have not been accomplished and production
modification 07633 has not been done, and that have done the actions
specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD: Within 6,000
flight hours or 30 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, do the modification, in accordance with
paragraphs ``Additional Work 1'' and ``Additional Work 2'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-28-2148, Revision 07, dated February 13, 2012.
    (1) Modification in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated January
23, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01,
dated October 29, 2002.
    (2) Further modification by ``Additional Work 3'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-28-2148, Revision 06, dated August 31, 2011.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the design approval holder (DAH) with a State
of Design Authority's design organization approval). For a repair
method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer
to this AD. You are required to ensure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.

(q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-
0188, dated September 19, 2012, for related information. This MCAI
may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2013-1072.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 7, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-00495 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55143-55144]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0063]

Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Mukilteo
Lighthouse Festival during the date and time noted below. This action
is necessary to prevent injury and to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the firework display.
During the enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or
anchoring within these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his Designated Representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced from 5 p.m.
on September 8, 2012, through 1 a.m. on September 9, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger, Sector Puget Sound Waterways
Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during the
dates and times noted below.
    The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on September
8, 2012 through 1 a.m. on September 9, 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Event name                         Event location              Latitude            Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukilteo Lighthouse Festival..............  Possession Sound............    47[deg] 56.9' N    122[deg] 18.6' W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332, which can be
found in the Federal Register (75 FR 33700) published on June 15, 2010,
apply to the activation and enforcement of this zone.
    All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must
obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or his Designated
Representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch
13 or Ch 16 or the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor
Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 33 CFR
part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advanced
notification of the safety zone via the Local Notice to Mariners and
marine information broadcasts on the day of the events.

    Dated: August 23, 2012.
G.G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-22010 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31626-31627]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Information
for the Prevention of Aircraft Collisions on Runways at Towered
Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information
collection. Feedback from surveys to be conducted under this generic
information collection will be used in the prevention of runway
collisions and in the medication of the severity and frequency of
runway incursions.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0692
    Title: Information for the Prevention of Aircraft Collisions on
Runways at Towered Airports
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this generic
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of a generic information collection.
    Background: Information to be collected will focus on pilot,
controller, or vehicle driver practices and/or feedback on specific
runway safety initiatives, such as training programs, Runway Safety
Action Team meetings, changes to procedures, changes to infrastructure
made to enhance runway safety (such as changes to paint, signs, lights,
and markings), or aspects of airport design. Feedback gathered on the
perceived effectiveness of specific strategies to prevent runway
incursions will be used by the FAA to refine current intervention
strategies and to develop new strategies to help reduce the severity
and frequency of runway incursions.
    Respondents: An estimated 8,900 pilots, aircraft support vehicle
drivers, airport/airfield maintenance staff, management, and other
personnel engaged in the operations of aircraft or airports.
    Frequency: Information will be collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,480 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-12476 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 47873]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-61-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: COH Rates Effective June
29, 2023 to be effective 6/29/2023.
    Filed Date: 7/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20230719-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-904-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: GT&C Section 23 Cleanup to be
effective 8/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20230719-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-905-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--UGI to
Colonial 8984439 eff 7-19-23 to be effective 7/19/2023.
    Filed Date: 7/19/23.
    Accession Number: 20230719-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: July 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15705 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43414-43419]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL15-1-001]

Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Modernization of Natural Gas
Facilities; Order Denying Request For Clarification

Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.

    1. On April 16, 2015, the Commission issued a policy statement in
the referenced proceeding to provide greater certainty regarding the
ability of interstate natural gas pipelines to recover the costs of
modernizing their facilities and infrastructure to enhance the
efficient and safe operation of their systems.\1\ The Policy Statement
explains the standards the Commission will require interstate natural
gas pipelines to satisfy in order to establish simplified mechanisms,
such as trackers or surcharges, to recover certain costs associated
with replacing old and inefficient compressors and leak-prone pipes and
performing other infrastructure improvements and upgrades to enhance
the efficient and safe operation of their pipelines. On May 15, 2015,
Process Gas Consumers Group (PGC) and the American Forest and Paper
Association (AF&PA)(jointly Requesters) filed, pursuant to 18 CFR
385.212 (2014), a joint ``Request for Clarification'' of the Policy
Statement.\2\ As discussed more fully below, the Commission denies the
requested clarifications of the Policy Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Modernization of Natural Gas
Facilities, 151 FERC ] 61,047 (2015) (Policy Statement).
    \2\ On June 1, 2015, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America (INGAA) and Tenaska Marketing Ventures (Tenaska) filed
answers to the request for clarification, and on June 2, 2015, the
Kansas Corporation Commission filed in support of the clarification
request. On June 9, AF&PA and PGC separately filed replies to INGAA
and Tenaska. On June 11, 2015, the Natural Gas Supply Association
(NGSA) filed an answer to the request for clarification and comments
on INGAA's answer. On June 24, 2015, Tenaska filed an answer to
AF&PA and PGC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Policy Statement

    2. The Policy Statement established a process to allow interstate
natural gas pipelines to seek to recover certain capital expenditures
made to modernize system infrastructure through a surcharge mechanism,
subject to conditions intended to ensure that the resulting rates are
just and reasonable and protect natural gas consumers from excessive
costs. Recognizing that historically the Commission has required
interstate natural gas pipelines to design their transportation rates
based on projected units of service, the Commission found in the Policy
Statement that recent governmental safety and environmental initiatives
have raised the probability that interstate natural gas pipelines will
soon face increased costs to enhance the safety and reliability of
their systems. The Commission issued the Policy Statement in an effort
to address these potential costs and to ensure that existing Commission
ratemaking policies do not unnecessarily inhibit interstate natural gas
pipelines' ability to expedite needed or required upgrades and
improvements, such as replacing old and inefficient compressors and
leak-prone pipelines. The Policy Statement adopted five guiding
standards a pipeline would have to satisfy for the Commission to
approve a proposed modernization cost tracker or surcharge. Those
criteria are (1) Review of Existing Base Rates; (2) Defined Eligible
Costs; (3) Avoidance of Cost Shifting; (4) Periodic Review of the
Surcharge and Base Rates; and (5) Shipper Support.
    3. The Policy Statement addressed how the Commission would apply
those standards, and noted that ``the Policy Statement will be most
effective and efficient if designed according to flexible parameters
that will allow for accommodation of the particular circumstances of
each pipeline's circumstances. Maintaining a transparent policy with
flexible standards will best allow pipelines and their customers to
negotiate just and reasonable, and potentially mutually agreeable, cost
recovery mechanisms to address the individual safety, reliability,
regulatory compliance and other infrastructure issues facing that
pipeline.'' \3\ The Commission also stated that ``while we are imposing
specific conditions on the approval of any proposed modernization cost
tracker, leaving the parameters of those conditions reasonably flexible
will be more productive in addressing needed and required system
upgrades in a timely manner. Further, consistent with this approach,
the Commission will be able to evaluate any proposals in the context of
the specific facts relevant to the particular pipeline system at
issue.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 40.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Request for Clarification

    4. In the Request for Clarification, the Requesters seek what they
assert is ``clarification'' of six points related to the Policy
Statement. Specifically they request the Commission clarify (1) that
pipelines must provide actual cost and revenue information, based on
twelve months of operation, including the type of data required in
section 154.312 of the Commission's regulations, to justify its
existing rates under standard 1; (2) the party responsible for paying
modernization surcharges in existing capacity release arrangements; (3)
the formal procedures for conducting the collaborative process to
ensure all stakeholders are invited and included in meetings; (4) that
the Commission intends the pipeline to work with each shipper sector in
the collaborative process; (5) that if a pipeline has over-collected
through a surcharge or tracker such that its rates are later found
unjust and unreasonable the pipeline must pay refunds calculated from
the date a protest or complaint was filed; and (6) that pipelines may
not seek to implement a modernization tracker or surcharge until the
October 1, 2015 effective date of the Policy Statement.
    5. On June 1, INGAA and Tenaska filed answers to the request for
clarification. INGAA asserts the clarification request raises issues
that were addressed by the Policy Statement and attempts to impose
added burdens and restrictions not required by the Policy Statement,
and as such should be rejected as an impermissible request for
rehearing.\5\ INGAA further states that even if the requests can be
considered requests for clarification, they are unnecessary because
contrary to the assertion of Requesters, the Policy Statement's
resolution of the issues raised is clear. Tenaska urges the Commission
to reject the request for clarification of the cost responsibility for
modernization charges in the capacity release context, stating that to
do so would preemptively resolve a bilateral contract issue against
replacement shippers. NGSA makes similar comments, stating that the
issue of cost responsibility for modernization surcharges is one for
the parties to the contracts, and that a generic determination by the
Commission will inhibit contract negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ INGAA Answer at 2 (citing Natural Gas Supply Ass'n, et al.,
137 FERC ] 61,051, at P 30 (2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As discussed more fully below, the Commission denies the
requests for clarification and declines to adopt the suggested formal
procedures.

II. Discussion

    7. The Commission issued the Policy Statement in order to provide
guidance to the industry as to how the Commission will evaluate
proposals by interstate natural gas pipelines for the recovery of
infrastructure modernization costs. As we stated in the Policy
Statement, the Commission intends the standards a pipeline must satisfy
to implement a modernization cost tracker ``to be sufficiently flexible
so as not to require any specific form of compliance but to allow
pipelines and their customers to reach reasonable accommodations based
on the specific

circumstances of their systems.'' \6\ The Commission will evaluate any
proposal for such a surcharge on an individual, case-by-case basis, at
which time interested parties will have the opportunity to raise any
issues or concerns. The requested clarifications are antithetical to
that approach, and accordingly, as discussed below, the Commission
denies the requested clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. Collaborative Process
    8. The Policy Statement requires pipelines to work collaboratively
with shippers and other interested parties to seek support for any
proposed cost modernization surcharge. As part of this collaborative
process, the Commission stated that, before submitting a modernization
cost recovery proposal to the Commission, a pipeline should meet with
its customers and other interested parties to seek resolution of as
many issues as possible.
    9. The Requesters ask the Commission to ``clarify'' the ``formal
procedures'' for conducting the collaborative process required by the
Policy Statement before the pipeline files its proposal with the
Commission, asserting that because the Policy Statement does not
require a filing to commence such a process, there is no clear way for
all shippers to know when a pipeline is initiating the process, or to
ensure that the process is fair and transparent. Requesters state that
the Commission should require the involvement of Commission settlement
judges, mediators or technical staff to ensure shippers' rights are
protected during the collaborative process.\7\ Requesters also request
clarification that the Commission intends the pipeline to work with
``each shipper sector'' during the collaborative process. Requesters
assert that while the Commission stated it was not requiring a specific
percentage of shipper support to approve a potential modernization cost
tracker, it did not address ``whether the pipeline is required to seek
shipper support from a broad spectrum of shipper sectors . . . or
whether it can just strike a deal with a subset of its customers.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Request for Clarification at 6-8.
    \8\ Request for Clarification at 9 & n.25 (citing Requester's
February 26, 2015 Joint Reply Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission denies clarification and declines to adopt
formal procedures or specified rules for the pre-filing collaborative
process required for a modernization cost tracker. The Policy Statement
makes clear the Commission's expectation that a pipeline work with all
of its customers during the collaborative process \9\ that would
precede a Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 4 filing. \10\ We decline to
adopt formal procedures for this collaboration, however, as it is the
Commission's intention that the process be an informal process for
parties to share information and negotiate absent Commission
involvement. The Policy Statement clearly states that during this
process, a pipeline should share with its customers the results of its
review of its systems to determine what system upgrades and
improvements are necessary, be responsive to requests for specific cost
and revenue data to determine whether existing rates are just and
reasonable, and provide parties the opportunity to comment on draft
tariff language for the proposed modernization cost mechanism. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 93 (``As part of
this collaborative process, pipelines should meet with their
customers and other interested parties to seek resolution of as many
issues as possible before submitting a modernization cost recovery
proposal to the Commission.'')
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 717c (2006).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. With respect to concerns that customers may not be aware of, or
be made aware of, the initiation of the collaborative process to
implement a modernization cost tracker, a pipeline will have to make an
NGA section 4 filing to implement any cost modernization surcharge.
That filing will be noticed the same as any other NGA section 4 filing
at the Commission, and will provide all interested persons the
opportunity to intervene in the proceeding and to protest. Consistent
with NGA section 4, the burden in that instance will be on the pipeline
to demonstrate that its proposal is just and reasonable, and as we
stated, the Commission will decide upon appropriate procedures to
address protests based upon the specific circumstances of each
proposal. Thus, in order to implement a proposed modernization cost
tracker in an efficient manner and without unnecessary delay, it is in
the proposing pipeline's best interest to resolve as many outstanding
issues as possible through the collaborative process prior to filing a
modernization cost recovery mechanism proposal.\12\ As noted in the
Policy Statement, the intent is to ``provide pipelines and their
customers wide latitude to reach agreements incorporating remedies for
a variety of system safety, reliability and/or efficiency issues.''
\13\ Adoption of formal procedures as suggested by the Requesters would
thwart rather than facilitate this intent and the collaborative
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In fact, INGAA recognizes in its answer (at 5) that
``excluding specific shippers or shipper sectors from the
collaborative process . . . would not be in pipelines' best
interests because any shippers or shipper groups that were excluded
from the process would surely contest any agreement reached by the
other parties.''
    \13\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 B. Existing Rate Justification

    12. The Policy Statement states that ``any pipeline seeking a
modernization cost recovery tracker must demonstrate that its current
base rates to which the surcharge would be added are just and
reasonable. This is necessary to ensure that the overall rate produced
by the addition of the surcharge to the base rate is just and
reasonable, and does not reflect any cost over-recoveries that may have
been occurring under the preexisting base rates.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Requesters assert that the Policy Statement does not identify
the data that pipelines must provide under the Commission's regulations
to show that the rates are just and reasonable, and whether a cost and
revenue study would need to include the information in the form
required by section 154.312 or 154.313 of the Commission's regulations.
Requesters state the Commission should clarify that the pipeline must
provide its most recent 12-months of actual costs and revenues, and the
information required under the more inclusive section 154.312, prior to
engaging in any collaborative process with its shippers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Request for Clarification at 1-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Commission denies clarification. In the Policy Statement,
we declined to adopt suggestions that we require an NGA general section
4 rate proceeding as the only means to satisfy the standard that
existing rates are just and reasonable. As we noted, the ``type of rate
review necessary to determine whether a pipeline's existing rates are
just and reasonable is likely to vary from pipeline to pipeline . . .
therefore, we remain open to considering alternative approaches for a
pipeline to justify its existing rates.'' \16\ As that statement
implies, the Commission determined neither to require a specific method
by which the pipeline must show its existing rates are just and
reasonable, nor to proscribe the specific data or form that the data
must take if a pipeline chooses to justify its existing rates by a
method other than a general NGA section 4 rate case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. As we made clear in the Policy Statement, a pipeline seeking a

modernization cost surcharge must demonstrate to the Commission that
its existing base rates are no higher than a just and reasonable level.
Absent such a showing, the Commission would be unable to find that the
overall rate produced by the addition of the surcharge to the base rate
is just and reasonable. In order to facilitate the review of the
pipeline's existing rates, we encouraged pipelines to engage in a full
exchange of information with their customers.\17\ If that process fails
to satisfy interested parties that existing base rates are no higher
than a just and reasonable level, then the Commission will establish
procedures to resolve any disputed issues of fact raised in the
parties' protests to the filing based upon substantial evidence on the
record. Such procedures may include, if necessary, a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge.\18\ Thus, to the extent a pipeline seeks
expedient approval of a modernization cost tracker, the Commission
expects that the pipeline will freely share data and the results of its
system testing to attempt to resolve as many issues as possible prior
to filing for the tracker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 53.
    \18\ If the pipeline files a settlement supported by many of its
shippers but some contesting parties raise issues that cannot be
resolved on the existing record, the Commission may approve the
settlement as uncontested for the consenting parties and sever the
contesting parties to litigate their issues. This preserves the
benefit of the settlement for the consenting parties, while allowing
the contesting parties to obtain a litigated result on the merits.
Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 85 FERC ] 61,345, at 62,344-5 (1998),
reh'g, 87 FERC ] 61,110, at 61,446-7 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Retroactive Refunds

    16. Requesters also state that the Commission should clarify that
if a pipeline has over-collected through a surcharge or tracker, such
that its rates are later found to be unjust and unreasonable after a
protest or complaint proceeding, the pipeline must pay refunds
calculated from the date a protest or complaint was filed. They request
a requirement that a pipeline seeking a modernization cost surcharge or
tracker must agree that, if during the period that the surcharge is in
effect, a protest or an NGA section 5 complaint is filed against the
pipeline, the pipeline must make refunds retroactive to the date of the
protest or complaint.\19\ Requesters assert the condition is justified
in return for obtaining an exception to the standard NGA section 4
ratemaking principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Request for Clarification at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Commission denies the requested clarification.\20\ If the
Commission is unable to determine the justness and reasonableness of a
proposed modernization cost tracker mechanism within 30 days after its
filing pursuant to NGA section 4, the Commission will suspend the
filing and it will remain subject to refund until the Commission
determines whether it is just and reasonable. Further, once a
modernization cost tracker mechanism has been approved, the requirement
that such mechanisms include a provision for trueing up cost over and
under-recoveries will ensure that the pipeline only recovers eligible
costs approved for recovery in the tracker mechanism. Each of the
pipeline's periodic filings pursuant to its modernization cost tracker
mechanism would include a comparison of the costs approved for recovery
during the prior period with the amounts the pipeline actually
collected from its shippers during that period.\21\ To the extent the
pipeline over-recovered or under-recovered those costs during the
relevant period, it would adjust the surcharge for the next period up
or down so as to either return the over-recovery to its shippers or
collect any under-recovery from them. Accordingly, the Commission finds
no reason to condition the right to implement a modernization cost
tracker mechanism on the pipeline's agreement to forego its NGA section
5 rights against retroactive refunds for amounts recovered pursuant to
a modernization cost tracker mechanism that the Commission has approved
as just and reasonable under NGA section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Commission notes further that this request is
effectively a request for rehearing of the Commission's decision not
to adopt a virtually identical condition requested by APGA in its
comments on the Proposed Policy Statement. See APGA Initial Comments
at 20, Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 86.
    \21\ The pipeline's customers would have a chance to challenge
any of the projected costs included in the periodic filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Cost Responsibility in Capacity Release Agreements

    18. With respect to capacity releases, Requesters state that the
Policy Statement did not respond to concerns raised by AF&PA that
parties to existing capacity release agreements did not contemplate
cost responsibility for modernization costs in existing capacity
release agreements, and thus the Commission should clarify that such
costs should be placed on replacement shippers.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Request for Clarification at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In their answers, INGAA and the NGSA oppose Requesters'
proposal that cost responsibility for any modernization surcharge be
placed on replacement shippers. INGAA states that under Commission
policy, the releasing shipper remains ultimately liable for any
surcharge amount that a replacement shipper does not pay. NGSA asserts
that given the myriad of current day contracting options, the
resolution of contractual matters, particularly where the contract is
silent as to surcharge cost responsibility, is best left to the
contracting parties. NGSA also argues that the Commission should not
make a generic determination as to the responsibility for modernization
cost surcharges within existing capacity release agreements because
doing so would unnecessarily impede the parties' attempts to negotiate
and resolve the issue.
    20. The Commission denies clarification. Section 284.8(f) of the
Commission's regulations \23\ provides that, unless otherwise agreed by
the pipeline, the contract of the releasing shipper will remain in full
force and effect during the release, with the net proceeds from any
release to a replacement shipper credited to the releasing shipper's
reservation charge. Therefore, to the extent the releasing shipper's
service agreement permits the pipeline to recover the surcharge from
the releasing shipper, the releasing shipper would remain liable for
the surcharge during the term of any temporary release. The replacement
shipper's liability for the surcharge would turn on the terms of its
release. If the release requires the replacement shipper to pay any
portion of the surcharge, those payments would be credited to the
releasing shipper. In short, the issue of cost responsibility for
modernization costs during the term of a capacity release is a
contractual issue between the relevant parties,\24\ and that issue
cannot be resolved on a generic basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 18 CFR 284.8(f) (2014).
    \24\ See Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 82, stating
that the pipeline's ability to impose a modernization cost surcharge
on discounted or negotiated rate shippers is a contractual issue
between the pipeline and its discounted or negotiated rate shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Effective Date

    21. Finally, Requesters seek clarification that pipelines may not
seek to implement a modernization cost tracker through a filing, or
even commence the collaborative process, until the October 1, 2015
effective date of the Policy Statement.\25\ Requesters state that this
effective date enforcement would provide the Commission time to
proscribe the formal procedures that it requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Request for Clarification at 11-12.

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

    22. The Commission declines to provide the requested clarification.
The Commission has no authority to regulate a pipeline's discussions
with its customers or the content of such discussions. Moreover, even
if it had the authority, the Commission advocates active discussions
between pipelines and their customers, and as we stated in the Policy
Statement, ``[t]he Commission sees no reason for pipelines to wait to
make needed improvements to their systems until a regulation is adopted
requiring them to do so.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Policy Statement, 151 FERC ] 61,047 at P 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Additionally, the Commission lacks the authority to prevent a
pipeline from making an NGA section 4 filing to request approval for a
modernization cost tracker. As INGAA notes, the Policy Statement did
not permit pipelines to file for tracker mechanisms for the first time;
it announced the Commission's policy for addressing such filings. There
is nothing to prevent a pipeline from making a proposal consistent with
the Commission's existing policy as set forth in Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC,\27\ prior to October 1, 2015.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 142 FERC ] 61,062 (2013).
    \28\ Further, because the Commission declines to adopt the
requested formal procedures for the collaborative process there is
no need for the suggested delay to allow time for the Commission to
develop those procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Finally, we note that, as with any policy statement, the Policy
Statement is not a final action of the Commission but an expression of
our intent as to how we will evaluate proposals by interstate natural
gas pipelines for the recovery of infrastructure modernization costs.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
held, a statement of policy ``is not finally determinative of the
issues or rights to which it is addressed;'' rather, it only
``announces the agency's tentative intentions for the future.'' \29\ We
will consider each pipeline proposal to implement a modernization cost
tracker based on the facts relevant to that particular pipeline and
will address any further concerns regarding the Policy Statement on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. FPC, 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C.
Cir. 1974). See Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service
Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines, 75 FERC ] 61,024, at 61,076
(citing, American Gas Ass'n v. FERC, 888 F.2d 136 (1989); Interstate
Natural Gas Pipeline Rate Design, 47 FERC ] 61,295 (1985), order on
reh'g, 48 FERC ] 61,122, at 61,442 (1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Information Collection Statement

    25. The collection of information discussed in the Policy Statement
is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
\30\ and OMB's implementing regulations.\31\ OMB must approve
information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \31\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In the Policy Statement, the Commission solicited comments from
the public on the Commission's need for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden
estimates, recommendations to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated
information techniques. The Commission received no comments on those
issues.
    27. The burden estimates are for implementing the information
collection requirements of the Policy Statement. The collection of
information related to the Policy Statement falls under FERC-545 (Gas
Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal).\32\ The following estimate of
reporting burden is related only to the Policy Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The information collection requirements in the Policy
Statement were included in FERC-545A (OMB Control No.: TBD). The
Commission used FERC-545A (a temporary collection number) because
another item was pending OMB review under FERC-545, and only one
item per OMB Control Number can be pending review at OMB at a time.
The submittal to OMB will now be made under FERC-545 (OMB Control
No. 1902-0154).
    \33\ An estimated 165 natural gas pipelines (Part 284 program)
may be affected by the Policy Statement. Of the 165 pipelines,
Commission staff estimates that 3 pipelines may choose to submit an
application for a modernization cost tracker per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Public Reporting Burden: The estimated annual burden and cost
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The hourly wage figures are published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, United States, Occupation Profiles,
May 2014 (available 4/1/2015) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm,
and the benefits are calculated using BLS information, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) to prepare the
modernization cost tracker filing is $65.59. It is the average of
the following hourly costs (salary plus benefits): manager ($77.93,
NAICS 11-0000), Computer and mathematical ($58.17, NAICS 15-0000),
Legal ($129.68, NAICS 23-0000), Office and administrative support
($39.12, NAICS 43-0000), Accountant and auditor ($51.04, NAICS 13-
2011), Information and record clerk ($37.45, NAICS 43-4199),
Engineer ($66.74, NAICS 17-2199), Transportation, Storage, and
Distribution Manager ($64.55, NAICS 11-3071).
    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) to perform the
periodic review is $67.04. It is the average of the following hourly
costs (salary plus benefits): manager ($77.93, NAICS 11-0000), Legal
($129.68, NAICS 23-0000), Office and administrative support ($39.12,
NAICS 43-0000), Accountant and auditor ($51.04, NAICS 13-2011),
Information and record clerk ($37.45, NAICS 43-4199).
    \35\ The pipeline's modernization cost tracker filing is
expected to include information to:
    Demonstrate that its current rates are just and reasonable and
that proposal includes the types of benefits that the Commission
found maintained the pipeline's incentives for innovation and
efficiency;
    Identify each capital investment to be recovered by the
surcharge, the facilities to be upgraded or installed by those
projects, and an upper limit on the capital costs related to each
project to be included in the surcharge, and schedule for completing
the projects;
    Establish accounting controls and procedures that it will
utilize to ensure that only identified eligible costs are included
in the tracker;
    Include method for periodic review of whether the surcharge and
the pipeline's base rates remain just and reasonable; and
    State the extent to which any particular project will disrupt
primary firm service, explain why it expects it will not be able to
continue to provide firm service, and describe what arrangements the
pipeline intends to make to mitigate the disruption or provide
alternative methods of providing service.
    \36\ Based on the Columbia case, we estimate that a review may
be required every 5 years, triggering the first pipeline reviews to
be done in Year 6 (for the pipelines which applied and received
approval in Year 1).

                           FERC-545, Modifications From Policy Statement in PL15-1-000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of       Number of    Average burden                   Total annual
                                    respondents    responses per     hours per     Total annual    cost ($) \34\
                                       \33\         respondent       response      burden hours      [rounded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             (1)             (2)             (3)     (1) x (2) x  ..............
                                                                                (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide information to shippers                3               1             750           2,250        $147,578
 for any surcharge proposal, and
 prepare modernization cost
 tracker filing \35\............
Perform periodic review and                    3       \36\ 0.60             350             630         $42,235
 provide information to show
 that both base rates and the
 surcharge amount remain just
 and reasonable.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal).
    30. Action: Revisions to an information collection.
    31. OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.
    32. Respondents: Business or other for profit enterprise (Natural
Gas Pipelines).
    33. Frequency of Responses: Ongoing.
    34. Necessity of Information: The Commission is establishing a
policy to allow interstate natural gas pipelines to seek to recover
certain capital expenditures made to modernize system infrastructure
through a surcharge mechanism, subject to certain conditions. The
information that the pipeline should share with its shippers and submit
to the Commission is intended to ensure that the resulting rates are
just and reasonable and protect natural gas consumers from excessive
costs
    35. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the guidance in
the Policy Statement and has determined that the information is
necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for
efficient information collection, communication, and management within
the natural gas pipeline industry. The Commission has assured itself,
by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective
support for the burden estimates associated with the information
requirements.
    36. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    37. Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0154 should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy of the comments should
also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. PL15-1-000. Comments
concerning the collection of information and the associated burden
estimate should be submitted by August 21, 2015.
    The Commission orders:
    The requests for clarification are denied as discussed above.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: July 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17949 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P