[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49815-49818]
[DOCID:fr16au10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0810; Amendment No. 25-130]
RIN 2120-AJ21

Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness
standards applicable to transport category airplanes to clarify that
flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does not allow a pilot
to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or single
full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without
endangering the airplane's structure. The FAA is issuing this final
rule to prevent pilots from misunderstanding the meaning of an
airplane's maneuvering speed, which could cause or contribute to a
future accident.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
final rule, contact Don Stimson, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface
Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1129; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For legal questions about this final rule, contact Doug Anderson,
Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it prescribes new safety standards for the design of
transport category airplanes.

I. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus
Industrie Model A300-605R airplane, crashed shortly after takeoff from
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 260 people aboard
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed. The airplane was
destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined ``that the probable cause
of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical
stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design loads that
were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder
pedal inputs.''
    The NTSB's investigation revealed that many pilots might have a
general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed
(VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists
when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA.
VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining the
strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces. The
structural design requirements do not cover multiple control inputs in
one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at any
speed, even below VA.
    The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes
mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane's speed is below
VA, they can make any control input they desire without
risking structural damage to the airplane. As a result, the NTSB
recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory
materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does
not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs
in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same
time.\1\ After making our own assessment, the FAA agrees with the
NTSB's finding and the resulting recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NTSB safety recommendation A-04-060, which is included
in the docket for this rulemaking or can be found at http://
www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_56_62.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the NPRM

    This final rule is based on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
Notice No. 09-10, published in the Federal Register on September 4,
2009 (74 FR 45777). In the NPRM, we proposed to amend 14 CFR
25.1583(a)(3) to change the requirement associated with a statement
that must be furnished in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) explaining
the use of VA to pilots. The proposed amendment was intended
to clarify that, depending on the particular airplane design, flying at
or below VA does not allow a pilot to make multiple large
control inputs in one airplane axis or single full control inputs in
more than one airplane axis at a time without endangering the
airplane's structure. The comment period for the NPRM closed on
November 3, 2009.

C. Summary of the Final Rule

    The FAA is adopting this final rule to prevent pilots from
misunderstanding the meaning of VA, which could cause or
contribute to a future accident. The final rule adopts clarifying
changes to certain statements that must be furnished in each AFM
identifying the types of control inputs to avoid because they may
result in structural failure.
    This final rule adopts the proposed rule with minor changes that
will resolve a longstanding inconsistency in the current requirements
that would have been left in place by the proposed rule. This
inconsistency, which goes back to at least the 1953 Civil Air
Regulations Part 4b, concerns the reference to ``maneuvering speed
VA'' in the existing Sec.  25.1583(a)(3). Sections 1.2 and
25.335(c) define ``VA'' as the ``design maneuvering speed,''
not the ``maneuvering speed.'' Section 25.1507 defines the
``maneuvering speed'' as an

operating limitation that must not exceed the design maneuvering speed,
VA. Since the ``maneuvering speed'' can be less than
VA, the reference to ``maneuvering speed VA'' in
the existing Sec.  25.1583(a)(3) is incorrect.
    An applicant may wish to establish a maneuvering speed different
from the design maneuvering speed, in order to make it easier for
pilots to use. For example, the design maneuvering speed,
VA, is an equivalent airspeed. Applicants might find it
desirable to provide a maneuvering speed as a calibrated airspeed equal
to or below the corresponding equivalent design maneuvering airspeed at
all altitudes, in order to provide the information in a format that is
consistent with that used on the flight deck airspeed indicator.
    In practice, the maneuvering speed has been identified as
VA in AFMs even when it is not always exactly the same as
the design maneuvering speed defined in Sec.  25.335(c). We have no
evidence of this being unsafe and see no reason to prohibit it in the
future. However, in order to address the inconsistency in the
regulations, for Sec.  25.1583(a)(3), we have changed the reference to
``the maneuvering speed VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``the
maneuvering speed established under Sec.  25.1507'' in this final rule.
For new Sec.  25.1583(a)(3)(i) and (ii), we have also changed the
references to ``VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``maneuvering
speed'' in this final rule. We will continue to allow applicants to
refer to this maneuvering speed as VA in AFMs.
    For small airplanes, part 23 defines an operating maneuver speed
(VO) to serve the same purpose as the maneuvering speed
established under Sec.  25.1507. The part 23 approach has one advantage
in that there is a unique V-speed abbreviation for pilots to use that
differentiates the maneuvering speed used operationally from the design
maneuvering speed used to show compliance with the structural type
certification requirements. We chose not to introduce a new V-speed
term in part 25 because the VA term has historically been
used for transport category airplanes for both the speed to be used
operationally and for design purposes. Using a new V-speed term could
also potentially lead to confusion if different speed terms and
definitions are used for new airplane designs compared to current
designs.

D. Summary of the Comments

    The FAA received nine comments on the NPRM from four commenters--
Airbus, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the NTSB, and one
private citizen. Airbus, ALPA, and the NTSB all supported the proposed
amendment. ALPA also submitted a comment that was beyond the scope of
the NPRM. Only the private citizen submitted comments specific to the
scope of the NPRM. The private citizen believed the proposed amendment
is too weak and does not address the underlying airplane handling,
structural, and systems issues. Summaries of the comments and our
responses are provided below.\2\ No changes were made to the final rule
in response to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The full text of each commenter's submission is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Comments

A. Proposed Language Unclear

    The private citizen stated that the proposed wording does not help
the pilot know at what speed a certain input to the airframe is safe
and what type of input is likely to cause structural failure. The
commenter went on to ask several related questions: How is a pilot to
know what ``rapid and large'' mean? Will the FAA require the AFM to
provide a specific and detailed explanation of exactly what the
particular airplane is capable of withstanding? Will there be an
advisory circular associated with this changed requirement to provide
interpretation and guidance as to acceptable means of compliance?
    The proposed wording tells the pilot the types of pilot input at
speeds above and below VA that may lead to structural
failure. As stated in the NPRM, ``full application of pitch, roll, or
yaw controls should be confined to speeds below VA.''
Therefore, at speeds below VA, pilots can make a full
control input in a single direction in the pitch, roll, or yaw axis
without concern for structural failure. (Note: In the final rule, the
term ``VA'' has been replaced with the words ``maneuvering
speed.'') The proposed regulatory language also states that rapid and
large alternating control inputs, especially if combined with large
changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control inputs in more than
one axis (i.e., pitch, roll, or yaw) at the same time, may result in
structural failure at any speed.
    The FAA believes the standard dictionary definitions and common
usage of the words ``rapid and large'' accurately convey their meaning.
The FAA does not see a need to provide further interpretation or
guidance as to the meaning of these terms.

B. Applicability

    The private citizen noted the proposed amendment is not
retroactive, so it would not fix the problem for existing aircraft.
    Although the proposed amendment would not be retroactive, the FAA
has worked with airplane manufacturers to amend their AFMs for all
major transport category airplanes used in U.S. operations. The wording
now in the limitations section of these AFMs meets the requirements of
this final rule.

C. Airplane Handling Problems Not Addressed

    The private citizen stated that the underlying handling problem
that led to the Flight 587 accident has not been addressed. In certain
circumstances, a pilot is required to take firm and, if not aggressive,
then immediate and positive action, yet seemingly has no way to know
how much or when this action is likely to break the airplane. The
commenter noted that the dilemma faced by the pilot is that there is
some unspecified (or poorly specified) point where the kind of control
inputs that he would almost routinely need to apply during landing or
takeoff are no longer safe.
    The FAA believes the kinds of control inputs that the pilot may
need to apply during takeoff or landing, or to counter an upset,
continue to be safe and are not precluded by this final rule. The
control inputs made by Flight 587's first officer, which included five
alternating full rudder inputs, would not be needed for any reason.

D. Safety Issues Not Addressed

    The private citizen noted that the structural and systems issues
arising from the Flight 587 accident have not been addressed. The
commenter believes different kinds of modifications to 14 CFR part 25
would be required, including consideration of composite structure
failure characteristics compared with traditional (metal) structure.
The commenter stated that this rulemaking must not proceed in isolation
from the other recommendations made by the NTSB. This action responds
to only one of seven NTSB safety recommendations.
    The commenter is correct in that this final rule responds only to
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-60. The other safety issues arising
from the Flight 587 accident are beyond the scope of this rulemaking
and will be addressed by other means.

III. Regulatory Notice and Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork

and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have
determined that there is no current or new requirement for information
collection requirement associated with this amendment.

International Compatibility

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

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows. As a result of its
investigation of the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November
12, 2001, the NTSB determined ``that the probable cause of the accident
was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of
the loads beyond ultimate design loads that were created by the first
officer's unnecessary and excessive pedal inputs,'' including five
alternating full rudder inputs. The NTSB's investigation identified
what appears to be a widespread misunderstanding among pilots about the
degree of structural protection that exists when full or abrupt flight
control inputs are made at airspeeds below an airplane's design
maneuvering speed. In fact, even below the design maneuvering speed,
the structural design standards do not ensure the airplane structure
can withstand multiple control inputs in one axis or control inputs in
more than one axis simultaneously. This amendment will require the AFM
to clarify that flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does
not allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane
axis, or single full control inputs simultaneously in more than one
axis, as such control inputs will endanger the airplane's structure. A
similar change has been made voluntarily to the AFM by manufacturers of
transport category airplanes currently in service. Consequently, this
amendment will entail no crew-training costs, as well as no costs of
testing, analysis, or changes to airplane design, and the expected
outcome will be minimal costs.
    This amendment addresses an identified safety issue, so the final
rule has benefits. Consequently, the final rule will have minimal costs
and positive net benefits and a full regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. In the NPRM we requested comments on our determination of
positive net benefits and did not receive any.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As we noted in the NPRM, all U.S. transport category aircraft
manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity
criterion of 1,500 employees. We received no comments disputing this
determination. Moreover, we have determined that the rule will have
minimal costs and positive net benefits. Therefore, as the
Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the effects of this rule and determined that it would
promote international trade by harmonizing with

corresponding EASA regulations thus reducing the cost of joint
certification.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the
proposed rule should apply differently to intrastate operations in
Alaska. We did not receive any comments, and we have determined, based
on the administrative record of this rulemaking, there is no need to
make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in
Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j) and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 25, as
follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
0
2. Amend Sec.  25.1583 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.1583  Operating limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The maneuvering speed established under Sec.  25.1507 and
statements, as applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
    (i) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be
confined to speeds below the maneuvering speed; and
    (ii) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control
inputs in more than one axis at the same time, should be avoided as
they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below
the maneuvering speed.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-20195 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 30534]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10724]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-049, OMB Control No. 3235-0070]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form 10-Q

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the office of Management and
Budget for approval of extensions on the following:
    Form 10-Q (17 CFR 249.308a) is filed by issuers of securities to
satisfy their quarterly reporting obligations pursuant to Section 13 or
15(d) of the Exchange Act (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)).
The information provided by Form 10-Q is intended to ensure the
adequacy of information available to investors about an issuer. Form
10-Q takes approximately 187.43 hours per response to prepare and is
filed by approximately 22,925 respondents. We estimated that 75% of the
approximately 187.43 hours per response (138.81 hours) is prepared by
the company for an annual reporting burden of 3,182,333 hours (138.81
hours per response x 22,925 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by July 18, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: May 13, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10724 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60763-60766]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0205; Notice No. 13-14]

Clarification on Fireworks Policy Regarding Approvals or
Certifications for Firework Series

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: This notice clarifies PHMSA's policy regarding applications
for firework device series. PHMSA has required separate applications
for each individual firework device. Often one firework device has
identical hazardous properties to another firework device that is
intended to produce a similar result in a firework display. These
similar firework devices are considered part of a series of firework
devices. In this document, we are clarifying our policy to accept
certain fireworks series applications.

DATES: October 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals
and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In this notice, PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)
is issuing its policy regarding firework device series applications,
which details the categories of fireworks for which PHMSA firework
series applications may be permitted, and the criteria necessary to be
considered a firework series. PHMSA believes that by issuing fireworks
approvals or certifications to firework device series, the application
backlog will be reduced, the current level of safety will be sustained,
and firework series will reach the market faster.

II. Background

    The transportation of fireworks in Division 1.3 or 1.4 requires a
classification approval issued by PHMSA, commonly referred to as an EX
number, or in the case of Division 1.4G consumer fireworks, a
classification certification may be issued by a fireworks certification
agency (FCA).\1\ The EX or FC number is a unique identifier that
indicates the device has been classed and authorized for transportation
in the U.S., and is specific to a particular device as specified in 49
CFR 173.64 or 173.65, and the American Pyrotechnic Association (APA)
Standard 87-1, Version 2001 (IBR, see 49 CFR 171.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Manufacturers of Division 1.4G consumer fireworks have the
option of applying to a DOT-approved fireworks certification agency
(FCA) instead of applying to PHMSA. The fireworks still must conform
to the requirements in the APA Standard 87-1, and pass a thermal
stability test. Instead of applying to PHMSA, the manufacturer may
apply in writing to an FCA with the information required in APA
Standard 87-1. After reviewing the application, the FCA will notify
the manufacturer, in writing, if the fireworks have been classed,
certified, and assigned an FC number, or if the application is
denied (see 49 CFR 173.65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Often manufacturers create one firework that has comparable
hazardous properties and chemical compositions to another firework that
is intended to produce a similar result in a firework display. These
similar fireworks are considered part of a firework series. For
example, five display shells are all eight inches in diameter and all
contain the same pyrotechnic powder weight, but each display shell
produces a different pattern. The hazardous properties of these
fireworks are identical, but currently each firework must have a
separate application. This current policy creates added paperwork for
both the manufacturers and PHMSA, results in delays in processing
applications, and consequently, creates delays in shipping the
fireworks.
    Following a review of the current policy, PHMSA is revising its
policy with respect to firework series approval or certification
applications. Specifically, PHMSA will accept firework series
applications that comply with the basic requirements of the APA
Standard 87-1, and the conditions specified in this policy.

III. Category of Devices Allowed in Series Applications

    The categories of firework series applications will be limited to
the following devices:

Cone Fountain
Cylindrical Fountain
Illuminating Torch
Mine and Shell
Missile with Fin-type Rocket
Roman Candle
Sky Rocket/Bottle Rocket
Toy Smoke Device
Wire Sparkler/Dipped Sparkler
Display Aerial Shell (Fireworks, UN0335, 1.3G)

IV. General Requirements

    PHMSA will accept firework series applications that comply with the
basic requirements of the APA Standard 87-1, Version 2001 (IBR, see 49
CFR 171.7) and for all series applications the following apply:
    (1) Series applications for PHMSA approval or FCA certification
will be limited to one category of device and one hazard
classification, e.g., Cone Fountain, Division 1.4G;
    (2) There are two types of series applications: ``Effect Series''
and ``Dimensional Series.'' The combination of an ``Effect Series'' and
a ``Dimensional Series'' is prohibited; and
    (3) The thermal stability test must be performed on all
combinations of the components (chemical mixtures) used together in the
device, or on each ``Finished Product'' covered under the application.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC13.004

V. Effect Series

    For all effect series applications the following apply:
    (1) Devices must be the same size and have the same maximum
pyrotechnic powder weight (Figure 1--``Effect'' 8-inch Display Shell
Series).
    (2) Display shell diameter, tube diameter, the number of tubes in a
device, and tube separation distances cannot change.
    (3) A series may cover an assortment of different combinations of
effects and patterns. A pattern is the design created by the effects.
(Examples: Figures 2 through 6).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC13.005

    (4) If devices contain single or multiple reports/salutes, the
size, weight and number of reports/salutes must remain constant.
    (5) The application must provide the following:
    (i) A detailed table for each device that indicates the breakdown
of all pyrotechnic composition names and weights;
    (ii) A list of all effect combinations used in the application; and
    (iii) Diagrams of each device that identifies all components and
dimensions.

VI. Dimensional Series

    For all dimensional series applications the following apply:
    (1) Devices may increase in dimensional size and in total
pyrotechnic composition weight. Change to the device size is limited to
one of the following:
    (i) Increasing the shell diameter (Example: Figure 7);
    (ii) Increasing the tube diameter; or
    (iii) Increasing the number of tubes in the device.
    (2) Effect(s) must remain constant throughout the series.
    (3) Tube separation distance must not change.
    (4) If devices in the series contain single or multiple reports/
salutes, all of the devices must include reports/salutes. However, the
size, weight, and number of reports/salutes may vary.
    (5) The application must provide the following:
    (i) A detailed table of the different sizes that indicates the
breakdown of all pyrotechnic composition names and weights; and
    (ii) A diagram of the largest device in the series that details all
components and dimensions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC13.006

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-24082 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51447-51449]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24045]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81985; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Exchange
Calculation of the Intraday Indicative Value for Specified Exchange-
Traded Products

October 31, 2017.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 20, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify representations made in proposed
rule changes previously filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') regarding Exchange calculation of the
``Intraday Indicative Value'' (or comparable intra-day value) for
specified exchange-traded products. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of

the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange rules relating to listing of certain exchange-traded
products (``ETPs'') require that an ``Intraday Indicative Value''
(``IIV'') or comparable intra-day value be disseminated at least every
15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session as defined in
Rule 7.34-E (a) (normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time).\4\ The
Commission has approved a number of NYSE Arca proposed rule changes
relating to NYSE Arca's listing and trading of shares of ETPs in which
the Exchange stated that the Exchange will calculate the IIV for those
ETPs. These proposed rule changes are listed in Exhibit 3 to this
filing (``Exhibit 3 Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The following Exchange rules require dissemination of an
intraday indicative value for specified ETPs: Rule 5.2-E(j)(3)
(Investment Company Units); Rule 5.2-E (j)(6) (Index-Linked
Securities); Rule 8.100-E (Portfolio Depositary Receipts); Rule
8.200-E (Trust Issued Receipts); Rule 8.201-E (Commodity-Based Trust
Shares); Rule 8.202-E (Currency Trust Shares); Rule 8.203-E
(Commodity Index Trust Shares); Rule 8.204-E (Commodity Futures
Trust Shares); Rule 8.300-E (Partnership Units); Rule; 8.600-E
(Managed Fund Shares); and Rule 8.700-E (Managed Trust Securities).
These rules use different terms to denote the intraday indicative
value: Intraday Indicative Value (Rules 5.2-E (j)(3), 8.100-E and
8.700-E); Indicative Value (Rule 8.200-E); Indicative Trust Value
(Rules 8.201-E; 8.202-E and 8.203-E); Indicative Partnership Value
(Rule 8.300-E); and Portfolio Indicative Value (Rule 8.600-E). As
used herein, the term ``IIV'' encompasses the terms Intraday
Indicative Value, Indicative Value, Indicative Trust Value,
Indicative Partnership Value, and Portfolio Indicative Value, as
referenced in Exchange rules. In addition, such term encompasses the
term ``Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value'' (or ``IOPV'') as used
in certain ``Exhibit 3 Filings'' (as defined below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to revise the representations made in the
Exhibit 3 Filings that state that the Exchange will calculate the IIV
for a particular ETP to state that the IIV will be calculated and
widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors. This
proposed change is consistent with representations the Exchange has
made in other filing [sic] relating to ETP listings.\5\ The Exchange
proposes this change so that ETP issuers, who may select and change the
IIV calculation agent for a particular ETP, may choose to use a
calculation agent other than the Exchange, provided that such IIV is
calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data
vendors.\6\ All other representations in the Exhibit 3 Filings
regarding the IIV remain the same and are not changing as a result of
this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange's proposed rule changes relating to ETP
listings generally have stated that the IIV would be calculated and
widely disseminated by, or widely disseminated by, an independent
third party, one or more major market data vendors, a third party
market data provider, or similar entities other than the Exchange.
See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68667 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 4955 (January 23, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-109) (Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing
and Trading of Shares of the U.S. Equity High Volatility Put Write
Index Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)). In addition,
the Exchange rules referenced supra at note 4 do not specify that
the Exchange will calculate the IIV for any ETP.
    \6\ Currently, it is the Exchange's understanding that several
major market data vendors display and/or make widely available IIVs
taken from the Consolidated Tape Association or other data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange's proposal to revise the representations
made in the Exhibit 3 Filings that state that the Exchange will
calculate the IIV for a particular ETP to state that the IIV will be
calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data
vendors is consistent with representations the Exchange has made in
other filings relating to ETP listings.\8\ The Exchange proposes this
change so that ETP issuers, who may select and change the IIV
calculation agent for a particular ETP, may choose to use a calculation
agent other than the Exchange, provided that such IIV is calculated and
widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors. While the
Exchange rules referenced in note 4 above require that an IIV be
disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core
Trading Session, such rules do not specify that the Exchange will
calculate the IIV for any ETP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 5, supra.
    \9\ See note 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose [sic] of the Act. The Exchange believes
the proposed rule change will enhance competition among ETP issuers by
providing each issuer with additional flexibility to change its IIV
calculation agent promptly based on business needs.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because it will allow ETP issuers for the Exhibit 3 Filings to
choose to use a calculation agent other than the Exchange, provided
that such IIV is calculated and widely disseminated by

one or more major market data vendors, without undue delay. Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-127. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-127 and should
be submitted on or before November 27, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24045 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58246-58247]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website 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, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Docket No.               File date                         Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-      10-26-2018  DeWanna Tarver.
     000.
Exempt:
    1. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-      10-25-2018  State of Louisiana Representative Taylor F. Barras.
     000.
    2. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-      10-30-2018  Ralph Abraham, M.D.
     000.
    3. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-1-2018  U.S. Senator John Kennedy.
     000.

    4. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-1-2018  U.S. Congressman Bob Gibbs.
     000.
    5. CP17-117-000, CP18-118-       11-1-2018  U.S. Congressmen.\1\
     000.
    6. CP17-117-000, CP18-118-       11-1-2018  U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D.
     000.
    7. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-6-2018  State of Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards.
     000.
    8. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-6-2018  State of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.
     000.
    9. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-7-2018  U.S. Congressman Pete Olson.
     000.
    9. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-       11-8-2018  U.S. Congress.\2\
     000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressmen Gene Green and Vicente Gonzalez.
\2\ House Representatives Clay Higgins and Steve Scalise.

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25138 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1372-1374]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2011-005; ER10-2016-003; ER10-2208-001; ER10-
2209-001.
    Applicants: PPL Montana, LLC, PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, PPL Colstrip I,
LLC, PPL Colstrip II, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market-Based Rate Update of the PPL
Northwest Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2895-008; ER11-2292-007; ER11-3942-006; ER11-
2293-007; ER10-2917-008; ER11-2294-

007; ER13-1613-001; ER12-2447-005; ER10-2918-009; ER10-2920-008; ER11-
3941-006 ;ER10-2921-008; ER10-2922-008; ER10-2966-008.
    Applicants: Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, Brookfield Energy
Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy
Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield
Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC,
Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.,
Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest
Hydro LLC, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of the Brookfield Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20131230-5270.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2664-008.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northwest Region
and Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Powerex Corp.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4267-007; ER11-4270-007; ER11-4269-008; ER11-
4268-007; ER11-113-008; ER10-2682-007; ER12-1680-005; ER11-4694-004.
    Applicants: Algonquin Energy Services Inc., Algonquin Power Windsor
Locks LLC, Algonquin Tinker Gen Co., Algonquin Northern Maine Gen Co.,
Sandy Ridge Wind, LLC, Granite State Electric Company, Minonk Wind,
LLC,GSG 6, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region
of the APUC Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-434-001; ER13-412-001; ER13-457-001; ER13-450-
001; ER13-518-001; ER13-321-002; ER13-2106-001; ER13-2109-002; ER10-
1410-002; ER13-1403-003.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Energy
Manchester Street, Inc., Dominion Retail, Inc., Fairless Energy, LLC,
NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Virginia
Electric and Power Company, Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region
of the Dominion Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20131230-5267.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-350-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits Errata to Order No.
764 Compliance Filing (Montana) to be effective 1/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-906-000.
    Applicants: GenConn Energy LLC.
    Description: GenConn Energy LLC submits GenConn Tariff Amendment to
be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-907-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits DEC-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-908-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits DEF-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-909-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits 2013 Annual RTEP
Allocation Filing to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-910-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Georgia Power Company submits DEC-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-911-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Georgia Power Company submits DEF-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-912-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Gulf Power Company submits DEC-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-913-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Gulf Power Company submits DEF-SoCo Interconnection
Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-914-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Mississippi Power Company submits DEC-SoCo
Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-915-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Mississippi Power Company submits DEF-SoCo
Interconnection Contract Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-916-000.
    Applicants: New York State Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Description: Informational filing of Installed Capacity Requirement
for the New York Control Area of the New York State Reliability
Council, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 12/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20131230-5269.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-917-000.
    Applicants: Agua Caliente Solar, LLC.
    Description: Agua Caliente Solar, LLC submits Aqua Tariff Amendment
to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-918-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits OATT Revised Attachment H-1
(Revised Depreciation Rates) to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-919-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits BPA AC Intertie Agreement 9th
Revised to be effective 3/2/2014.

    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-920-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits Rate Schedule No. 115
RPPA Spring Valley--Cancellation to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-921-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits Cancellation of
Edison Navajo Transmission Agreement as APS RS No. 267 to be effective
12/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20131231-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 31, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00095 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 65401]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Oakland/Southwest Airport; New Hudson, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the Oakland/Southwest Airport from
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of
the airport property. The proposal consists of the sale of vacant,
unimproved land owned by the County of Oakland (County).
    The County has requested from FAA a ``Release from Federal
agreement obligated land covenants'' to sell one (1) parcel and a
portion of another parcel of property acquired by the County without
Federal funding.
    The above mentioned land is not needed for aeronautical use, as
shown on the Airport Layout Plan. There are no impacts to the airport
by allowing the County to dispose of the vacant property. Approval does
not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
disposal of the airport property nor a determination of eligibility for
grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of proceeds from the
disposal of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's
Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published
in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Mr. David J. Welhouse, Program Manager, Detroit Airports
District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan
48174.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David J. Welhouse, Program
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road,
Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be
reviewed at this same location or at the Michigan Department of
Transportation, Airports Division, 2700 Port Lansing Road, Lansing,
Michigan.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the
property located in Lyon Township, Oakland County, Michigan, and
described as follows:
    Description of Parcel 12 being released (1.88 acres):
    Part of the Southeast \1/4\ of Section 4, Town 1 North, Range 7
East, Lyon Township, Oakland County, Michigan, described as commencing
at the Southeast corner of said Section 4; thence along the South line
of said Section, due West 1297.34 feet; thence due North 903.09 feet to
the point of beginning; thence due West 150.00 feet; thence due North
502.47 feet to the centerline of Pontiac Trail; thence along the said
centerline, North 59 degrees 44 minutes 06 seconds East 173.67 feet,
thence due South 590.00 feet to the point of beginning.
    Description of that portion of Parcel 11 being released (0.156
acres):
    A part of the Southeast \1/4\ of Section 4, Town 1 North, Range 7
East and part of the Northeast \1/4\ of Section 9, Lyon Township,
Oakland County, Michigan, being more particularly described as:
commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 4; thence South 86
degrees 15 minutes 46 seconds West, 1297.34 feet along the South line
of said Section 4; thence North 3 degrees 25 minutes 08 seconds West,
781.08 feet to the point of beginning; thence 155.83 feet along a non-
tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 293.00 feet,
a Delta of 30 degrees 28 minutes 18 seconds and a Chord bearing North
41 degrees 01 minutes 10 seconds West, 154.00 feet; thence North 86
degrees 34 minutes 52 seconds East, 93.96 feet, thence South 3 degrees
25 minutes 08 seconds East, 122.01 feet to the point of beginning and
containing 6,793 square feet or 0.156 acres.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan, on August 11, 2010.
John L. Mayfield, Jr.,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-26432 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M