[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13009-13012]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM19-2-001; Order No. 861-A]

Refinements to Horizontal Market Power Analysis for Sellers in
Certain Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System
Operator Markets

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Order on rehearing and clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this order on rehearing, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission grants clarification in part and denies rehearing of certain
revisions to its regulations regarding the horizontal market power
analysis required for market-based rate sellers that study certain
Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System Operator
markets and submarkets therein.

DATES: This order on rehearing and clarification is effective May 5,
2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Dougherty (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mary Ellen Stefanou (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. On July 18, 2019, the Commission issued Order No. 861,\1\ which
modified its regulations regarding the horizontal market power analysis
required for market-based rate Sellers \2\ that study certain Regional
Transmission Organization (RTO) or Independent System Operator (ISO)
markets and submarkets therein. Specifically, in Order No. 861, the
Commission relieved Sellers located in certain RTO or ISO markets and
submarkets therein of the obligation to submit indicative screens to
the Commission in order to obtain or retain authority to sell energy,
ancillary services, and capacity at market-based rates. The
Commission's regulations continue to require Sellers that study an RTO,
ISO, or submarket therein, to submit indicative screens for
authorization to make capacity sales at market-based rates in any RTO/
ISO market that lacks an RTO/ISO administered capacity market subject
to Commission-approved RTO/ISO monitoring and mitigation.\3\ For those
RTOs and ISOs that do not have an RTO/ISO-administered capacity market,
the Commission found that Commission-approved RTO/ISO monitoring and
mitigation is no longer

presumed sufficient to address any horizontal market power concerns for
capacity sales where there are indicative screen failures. However,
Sellers studying such markets would be relieved of the requirement to
submit indicative screens if they sought market-based rate authority
limited to sales of energy and/or ancillary services in those
markets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refinements to Horizontal Market Power Analysis for Sellers
in Certain Reg'l Transmission Org. & Indep. Sys. Operator Mkts.,
Order No. 861, 84 FR 36374 (July 26, 2019), 168 FERC ] 61,040
(2019).
    \2\ The term ``Seller'' is defined as any person that has
authorization to or seeks authorization to engage in sales for
resale of electric energy, capacity or ancillary services at market-
based rates. 18 CFR 35.36(a)(1).
    \3\ Order No. 861, 168 FERC ] 61,040 at P 38.
    \4\ Id. P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On August 15, 2019, California Independent System Operator
Corporation (CAISO) filed a motion for clarification of Order No. 861.
On August 19, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a
request for rehearing, or in the alternative clarification, of Order
No. 861. As discussed further below, we grant CAISO's requested
clarification and deny PG&E's request for rehearing and alternative
request for clarification.

II. Discussion

A. Capacity Procurement Mechanism Soft Offer Cap

1. Final Rule
    3. In describing CAISO's Capacity Procurement Mechanism, the
Commission stated that the soft offer cap for the Capacity Procurement
Mechanism is an estimate of the cost of new entry. In response to the
Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR),\5\ some commenters
argued that California's Resource Adequacy program coupled with CAISO's
backstop procurement process, including the Capacity Procurement
Mechanism, offer adequate safeguards against the exercise of horizontal
market power in the sale of capacity.\6\ In response, the Commission
noted that ``the soft offer cap is an estimate of the cost of new entry
and does not necessarily reflect a mitigated, `going forward' cost of
any existing generator and does not address concerns regarding local
market power.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Refinements to Horizontal Market Power Analysis for Sellers
in Certain Reg'l Transmission Org. & Indep. Sys. Operator Mkts., 84
FR 993 (Feb. 1, 2019), 165 FERC ] 61,268 (2018) (NOPR).
    \6\ See Order No. 861, 168 FERC ] 61,040 at P 33.
    \7\ Id. P 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Requests for Clarification and Rehearing
    4. CAISO seeks clarification and PG&E requests rehearing regarding
the Commission's description of CAISO's Capacity Procurement Mechanism
soft offer cap. CAISO and PG&E state that the Commission's
characterization of the soft offer cap as the cost of new entry for
resources is not technically correct. CAISO states that the ``soft
offer cap is based on the levelized going-forward fixed costs of a
reference resource, plus a 20 percent adder.'' \8\ Thus, CAISO
recommends ``that the Commission clarify Order No. 861 to state that
the [Capacity Procurement Mechanism] soft offer cap represents an
estimate of going-forward costs plus a 20 percent adder, as opposed to
an estimate of the cost of entry.'' \9\ PG&E states that the Commission
should grant rehearing and remove the requirement for capacity sellers
in CAISO to submit indicative screens because the Commission based its
conclusion that the Capacity Procurement Mechanism is inadequate to
mitigate local capacity market power in CAISO on the incorrect finding
that the soft offer cap is based on the cost of new entry.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CAISO Motion for Clarification at 2.
    \9\ Id. at 2, 3.
    \10\ PG&E Request for Rehearing at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. PG&E notes that the Commission erred in Order No. 861 when it
stated that the soft offer cap is an estimate of the cost of new entry,
and PG&E contends that the soft offer cap mitigates local capacity
market power by limiting Capacity Procurement Mechanism compensation to
the marginal unit's going-forward fixed costs, plus a 20 percent
adder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    6. We grant CAISO's request and clarify that the CAISO Capacity
Procurement Mechanism soft offer cap represents an estimate of going-
forward costs plus a 20 percent adder, as opposed to an estimate of the
cost of entry. We note that the Commission approved this definition of
the soft offer cap,\12\ which is included in CAISO's tariff.\13\ As
discussed further below, the change in characterization of the soft
offer cap does not affect the determinations made in Order No. 861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 153 FERC ] 61,001, at PP
13, 29 (2015).
    \13\ CAISO Tariff section 43A.<IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We deny PG&E's request for rehearing. While the Commission
incorrectly characterized the Capacity Procurement Mechanism soft offer
cap in Order No. 861, the Commission also stated that the soft offer
cap does not provide mitigation comparable to the mitigation applied to
the RTO/ISO administered capacity markets.\14\ As discussed further
below, the Commission declined to extend Order No. 861's relief to
capacity Sellers located in CAISO for several reasons, including the
lack of a transparent market price for capacity in CAISO and the fact
that capacity sales are not reviewed, approved, or monitored by
CAISO.\15\ We find that these reasons continue to apply and, therefore,
deny PG&E's request for rehearing and continue to require that capacity
Sellers in CAISO submit indicative screens for capacity sales. For the
same reasons, we also will not permit capacity Sellers in CAISO to rely
on a rebuttable presumption that the Capacity Procurement Mechanism
adequately mitigates Sellers' horizontal market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Order No. 861, 168 FERC ] 61,040 at P 40.
    \15\ Id. P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Retention of Screens for Capacity Sellers in CAISO

1. Final Rule
    8. In Order No. 861, the Commission required capacity Sellers in
CAISO to continue to submit indicative screens and eliminated the
rebuttable presumption that Commission-approved RTO/ISO market
monitoring and mitigation is sufficient to address any horizontal
market power concerns regarding sales of capacity in CAISO.\16\ The
Commission stated that, although the majority of capacity sales within
CAISO are made through the Resource Adequacy program, these sales are
not reviewed, approved, or monitored by CAISO. The Commission explained
that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) reviews and
approves capacity purchases by load serving entities through the
Resource Adequacy program pursuant to resource requirements established
by the CPUC, but that these purchases are not necessarily the result of
competitive solicitations. The Commission also explained that there is
no transparent market price determined under Commission-approved rules
for capacity in CAISO comparable to the market price for capacity
established by RTOs/ISOs with centralized capacity markets.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 38.
    \17\ Id. P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for Rehearing
    9. PG&E requests rehearing of the Commission's decision to retain
indicative screens for capacity Sellers in CAISO and asks that the
Commission conclude that existing Commission-approved capacity backstop
mechanisms in CAISO adequately mitigate the potential for capacity
market power and, therefore, that capacity Sellers in CAISO do not need
to submit indicative screens.\18\ PG&E explains that CAISO and the CPUC
have created a two-step process to ensure that adequate supply
resources are available

to meet the demand for electricity in California. PG&E states that
first, load serving entities are required to demonstrate to both the
CPUC and CAISO that they have procured an adequate amount of Resource
Adequacy capacity to meet their forecasted peak demand as well as a
planning reserve margin. PG&E states that load serving entities rely
primarily on the bilateral market to procure these resources, and this
bilateral market, the procurement requirements, and associated rules
are generally called the Resource Adequacy program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ PG&E Request for Rehearing at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Second, PG&E states that if load serving entities fail to meet
their Resource Adequacy requirements, CAISO may procure additional
capacity through the Capacity Procurement Mechanism, and that ``[t]he
[Capacity Procurement Mechanism] is thus a backstop procurement that
fills any remaining need for supply-side resources.'' \19\ PG&E states
that when CAISO procures backstop capacity through the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism, CAISO runs a competitive solicitation process, a
pay-as-bid auction with a soft offer cap, which serves to mitigate
market power in these competitive solicitation processes and, if
designed properly, can also mitigate prices in the bilateral Resource
Adequacy market in a manner similar to other RTO/ISO capacity markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. PG&E argues that, given the current role that the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism plays in mitigating market power in CAISO, and in
light of the ongoing CAISO stakeholder process to improve the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism so that it more effectively limits the abuse of
market power through market power tests and enhanced mitigation, the
Commission erred in Order No. 861 in concluding that CAISO should be
treated differently than other RTOs/ISOs. PG&E asserts that the
Commission should therefore grant rehearing and determine that the
Capacity Procurement Mechanism works in tandem with California's
Resource Adequacy program to mitigate capacity market power, and that
this creates a rebuttable presumption that Sellers of capacity cannot
exercise horizontal market power and therefore are not required to
submit indicative screens studying the capacity market in CAISO.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. PG&E next argues that if the Commission nonetheless continues
to find CAISO's existing Capacity Procurement Mechanism to be
inadequate to mitigate the potential for market power, the Commission
should modify Order No. 861 to require improvements to the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism so that it provides adequate mitigation of
capacity market power comparable to other RTOs/ISOs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. PG&E also requests that, in the event that the Commission
continues to require Sellers of capacity in CAISO to submit indicative
screens, it should host a technical conference or otherwise clarify how
the assumptions and modeling process should be adjusted to reflect that
the energy market-focused indicative screens are now only being used as
an indicator for market power in certain capacity markets.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 16-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    14. We deny PG&E's request for rehearing and motion for
clarification. We disagree with PG&E's assertion that the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism adequately mitigates the potential for capacity
market power such that the Commission should lift the requirement that
Sellers of capacity in CAISO submit indicative screens. In CAISO,
capacity is primarily procured in the bilateral market, and the
Capacity Procurement Mechanism serves as a backstop procurement
mechanism, not a mitigation construct for the bilateral market.
    15. CAISO does not have a centralized capacity market, and thus, as
explained in Order No. 861, there are no transparent capacity prices
determined under Commission-approved rules, similar to the market
prices for capacity that are established in RTOs/ISOs with centralized
capacity markets.\23\ The vast majority of capacity sales within
California are bilateral sales, and those sales are not reviewed,
monitored, or approved by CAISO. The CPUC regulates capacity purchases
by load serving entities to ensure compliance with the CPUC's Resource
Adequacy program. However, the bilateral Resource Adequacy procurement
processes are not subject to Commission review to ensure competitive
process. Load serving entities' Resource Adequacy capacity purchases
and their associated prices are only transparent to the relevant
regulatory authority, be it the state utility commission, a municipal
utility board, a city council, or some other authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 861, 168 FERC ] 61,040 at P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We also deny PG&E's request to require that the Capacity
Procurement Mechanism be modified so that it provides adequate
mitigation of capacity market power comparable to other RTOs/ISOs. Such
a requirement would be outside of the scope of this rulemaking. As
noted in Order No. 861, relief from the requirement to submit
indicative screens may be extended to capacity Sellers in CAISO in the
future, if CAISO develops an ISO-administered capacity market that is
subject to Commission-approved market monitoring and mitigation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. P 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Finally, we deny PG&E's request to hold a technical conference
or otherwise clarify how to adapt the market power screens for
different capacity products. In Order No. 861, the Commission did not
require adjustments to the current market power screens, and we thus
find this request to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. The
market power screens were designed to show the lack of presumption of
market power for energy, capacity, and ancillary services and will
continue to serve this purpose in markets that lack an RTO/ISO
administered capacity market subject to Commission-approved RTO/ISO
monitoring and mitigation.

III. Document Availability

    18. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    19. From FERC's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    20. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

IV. Effective Date

    21. This order on rehearing and clarification is effective May 5,
2020.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: February 20, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03929 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Form for Compliance with E.O. 12866 Docket Requirements

Title of Regulation:     National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Minor Correction to Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and Changes in References to Analytical Methods

Contact person:   Tracy Bone

Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Was this regulation reviewed by OMB under Executive Order  12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review?

Yes          No

If you checked “no”, you are done with this form.  Simply place it in the docket for your regulation.  If you checked “yes”, please fill out the remainder of the form before placing it in the docket.  Also docket any relevant documents referenced in the form.

For regulations that are checked “Yes” above:

This regulation was reviewed by OMB under Executive Order  12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review.

Attached is the draft regulation and any other documents sent to OMB for review, such as analyses and assessments.   E.O. 12866 requires agencies to make these publicly available.

E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to identify the substantive changes between the draft regulation sent to OMB for review and the regulation subsequently announced  [Please check the appropriate box below:]

        	EPA made substantive changes to this regulation

(includes changes initiated by EPA or OMB).

H

¶

¼

¾

Ö

Ø

ä

W

Ž

’

º

¼

â

ä

,

-

‘

’

	e changes made, and (2) notes those changes OMB suggested or recommended.

        	No substantive changes were made to this regulation

	Therefore, no further attachments are required..

If you have questions about this regulation, please call the EPA contact person listed above.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 26246]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL14-42-000; QF87-120-014]

Badger Creek Limited; Notice of Petition for Limited Waiver

    Take notice that on April 29, 2014, pursuant to section 292.205(c)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 292.205(c), Badger Creek Limited (BCL)
filed a petition for limited waiver of the qualifying facility
operating and efficiency standards set forth in 18 CFR 292.205(a) of
the Commission's Regulations for its facility located in Bakersfield,
California (Facility), for calendar years 2014 and 2015. BCL makes such
a request due to a permanent discontinuation of steam sales to the
Facility's thermal host.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 20, 2014.

    Dated: April 30, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10422 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64704-64706]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0619; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-356-AD;
Amendment 39-17219; AD 2012-21-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400
airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system,
followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine,
and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This AD requires repetitive
operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed
capability of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss of the
fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout, inability to
restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM was published in the
Federal Register on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41934). The original NPRM (73
FR 32245, June 6, 2008) proposed to require performing repetitive
operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and other related testing if necessary. The SNPRM proposed to require
repetitive operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received from a single
commenter: Boeing concurs with the content of the SNPRM (77 FR 41934,
July 17, 2012).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1,080 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cost per
             Action                    Labor cost          product              Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test...............  3 work hours x $85 per         $255  $275,400 per engine, per test.
                                  hour = $255 per
                                  engine, per test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional
terminating action specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-21-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17219; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0619; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-356-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on
Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel
suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the event of
total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions

    Within 30,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction

feed of the fuel system, and all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-28A2331, dated April 2, 2012. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational
test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours.
Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative procedure or repetitive test intervals will be allowed.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2331, dated April 2,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 5, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-25674 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32432-32433]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs, Colorado

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Colorado Springs Airport under the provisions of
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224,
Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Troy Stover, Colorado Springs Airport,
Colorado Springs, Colorado, at the following address: Mr. Troy Stover,
Colorado Springs Airport, 7770 Milton E. Proby Parkway, Suite 50,
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue,
Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Colorado Springs Airport under the
provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On June 2, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at the Colorado Springs Airport submitted by the Colorado
Springs Airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Colorado Springs Airport is proposing the release from the
terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on approximately 9.5
acres of federally obligated land at the Colorado Springs Airport. The
proposed release would allow for improvements to be made to the
Marksheffel Road corridor adjacent to the east side of the airport.
Marksheffel Road is currently a two-lane rural arterial road with
unimproved shoulders and roadside ditches. For the majority of the
corridor there is an inadequate roadway cross-

section, including areas with no shoulders and a lack of turn lanes, as
well as inadequate roadway and intersection capacity, lack of
pedestrian/bicycle facilities and sharp curves. These deficiencies
contribute to roadway crash incidences along the Marksheffel Road
corridor. The proposed airport property is undeveloped and is not
needed for present or future aviation purposes. The property will be
sold at fair market value and the sponsor will reinvest the revenue
into the airport. The property release conveyance will include
appropriate continuing right of flight and continuing restriction
clauses that will prohibit any activity on the land that would
interfere with or be a hazard to the flight of aircraft over the land
or to and from the airport, or that interferes with air navigation and
communications facilities serving the airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents germane to the application
in person at the Colorado Springs Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado, on June 2, 2015.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-13971 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 34394-34396]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-
2003-14223; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-26653]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
28 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective August 8, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before August 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7918;
FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-26653, using any of the
following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 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.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your

comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 28 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 28 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Glenn A. Babcock, Jr.
JeanPierre Brefort
Joey E. Buice
James T. Butler, Jr.
Paul W. Dawson
Lois E. De Souza
James M. Eads
Jay E. Finney
Steven A. Garrity
Waylon E. Hall
Gary D. Hallman
John R. Hughes
Edward J. Kasper
Jeffrey M. Kimsey
Richard L. Leonard
Donald R. McCracken
William F. Nickel, IV
Gerald L. Phelps, Jr.
Thomas G. Raymond
Robert A. Reyna
Tim M. Seavy
Boyd D. Stamey
Randy D. Stanley
Harry J. Stoever
Lee T. Taylor
James M. Tayman, Sr.
Scott C. Teich
John E. Terrell

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 28 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 66 FR 41656; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR
41811; 72 52421; 65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 12265; 68
FR 10300; 65 FR 7546; 72 FR 44915; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 30502; 68 FR
10301; 68 FR 19596; 70 FR 25878; 72 FR 28093; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570;
70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR
182; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 36099). Each of these 28 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by August 14, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 28 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent

with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA
will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: July 7, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-16593 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71952-71955]
[DOCID:fr26no08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1243; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated
(Erickson) Model S-64F Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD) for Erickson Model S-64F helicopters. The AD would require
inspections for cracking or working rivets in each left and right
splice fitting (transition fitting), the pylon bulkhead assembly--
canted (bulkhead assembly), the pylon steel strap (strap), and the
attaching rotary rudder boom and pylon structure. This proposal is
prompted by several reports of cracking in the transition fittings, the
bulkhead assembly, and pylon. The actions specified by the proposed AD
are intended to detect cracking in the rotary rudder boom or pylon due
to fatigue, and to prevent failure from static overload and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson/Compliance
Officer, 3100 Willow Springs Rd., PO Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0170, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2008-1243,
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-03-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the
proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

Discussion

    This document proposes adopting a new AD for Erickson Model S-64F
helicopters with a transition fitting, part number (P/N) 6420-66341-
101, -102, -103, or -104, a bulkhead assembly, P/N 6420-66340-041, -
043, or -044, or a strap, P/N 6420-66301-119 or -127, installed. The AD
would require inspections for cracking or working rivets in each
transition fitting, the bulkhead assembly, the strap, and the attaching
rotary rudder boom and pylon structure, and replacing or repairing any
cracked or damaged part with an airworthy part. This proposal is
prompted by several reports of cracking in the transition fittings, the
bulkhead assembly, and the pylon. The cracks were discovered during
inspections. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
detect cracking in the rotary rudder boom or pylon due to fatigue, and
to prevent failure from static overload and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.
    We have reviewed Erickson Service Bulletin (SB) No. 64B20-6,
Revision A, dated December 12, 2007, which describes procedures for
inspecting the transition fittings, the bulkhead assembly, the strap,
and the attaching rotary rudder boom and pylon structure for cracking
or working rivets. We have also reviewed Erickson SB No. 64F General-3,
Revision C, dated December 12, 2007, which summarizes a listing of a
portion of the Model S-64F helicopter components, their part numbers,
and the corresponding service bulletins to use when performing the
structural inspections.
    The unsafe condition associated with the fatigue cracking and
working rivets is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within
20 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 20 hours TIS:
     Visually inspecting each transition fitting for a crack or
working rivets on the inboard face of the rotary rudder boom and pylon;
     Visually inspecting the outboard face of each rotary
rudder boom and pylon skin panel (skin panel) that attaches to the
transition fittings for a crack or working rivets in the transition
fitting attachment areas;
     Visually inspecting the forward and aft sides of the
bulkhead assembly for a crack;
     Visually inspecting the upper 12 inches of the strap for a
crack or for working rivets; and
     Visually inspecting the pylon on each side of the upper 12
inches of the strap, and also 6 inches above the strap, for a crack or
working rivets.
    For any pylon with a strap installed, the proposed AD would
require, within 155 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 155 hours TIS, removing the inspection panels, P/N 6420-66304-
109 and 6420-66303-125, on the forward and aft sides of the pylon, and
visually inspecting the left-hand cap angle (longeron), P/N 6420-66304-
136, and the interior area of the pylon that is adjacent to the upper
12 inches of the strap, as well as 6 inches above the end of the strap,
for a crack or working rivets. At each 8,300 hours TIS transition
fitting replacement, the proposed AD would require:
     With the transition fitting removed, visually inspecting
both sides of each skin panel for a crack in the areas to which the
transition fitting attaches; and
     Performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the skin
panels for a crack in the area around the fastener holes attaching the
transition fittings to the rotary rudder boom and pylon.
    The proposed AD would also require, before further flight:
     Inspecting any part and the surrounding area using a 10-
power or higher magnifying glass if you cannot visually determine that
a crack does not exist in that part;
     Performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection of any part,
other than a strap, if you cannot determine that a crack does not exist
in the part after inspecting it with a 10-power or higher magnifying
glass;
     Performing a magnetic particle inspection of any strap if
you cannot determine that a crack does not exist in the strap after
inspecting it with a 10-power or higher magnifying glass;
     If a crack is found, replacing any cracked part with an
airworthy part or repairing that part if it is within the maximum
repair damage limits; and
     If any loose or working rivets are found, removing the
rivets, visually inspecting the fastener holes and surrounding area for
a crack or any other damage, and replacing any cracked part with an
airworthy part or replacing any damaged part with an airworthy part if
the damage exceeds the maximum repair damage limits or repairing any
damaged part, if the part is within the maximum repair damage limits.
    Finally, replacing any loose or working rivet would be required.
The actions would be required to be accomplished by following specified
portions of the service bulletin described previously.
    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 7 helicopters of
U.S.

registry, and the proposed actions would take approximately:
     0.75 work hour for the visual inspection of the transition
fittings, skin panels, the bulkhead assembly, strap, and pylon exterior
in the strap area with 30 inspections per year;
     0.50 work hour for the visual inspection of the pylon
interior in the strap area with 4 inspections per year;
     0.75 work hour for the visual and fluorescent penetrant
inspections of the skin panels at the transition fitting with 1
inspection per year; and
     40 work hours per helicopter to repair a pylon structural
assembly.
    The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would
cost approximately $50,000 per helicopter to repair a pylon structural
assembly, if needed. The estimated cost of labor for the inspections of
7 helicopters would be $14,140. The estimated cost to repair the pylon
structural assembly on a helicopter, including the cost of the
replacement parts and labor, would be $53,200. Based on these figures,
the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated
to be $67,340 per year for the fleet, assuming a pylon structural
assembly on one helicopter would need to be repaired.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 that the 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:

Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated: Docket No. FAA-2008-1243;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-03-AD.

    Applicability: Model S-64F helicopters, with any of the parts
listed in Table 1 of this AD installed, certificated in any
category.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Installed part                                         Part number (P/N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left or right splice fitting             6420-66341-101, -102, -103, or -104
 (transition fitting).
Pylon bulkhead assembly--canted          6420-66340-041, -043, or -044
 (bulkhead assembly).
Pylon steel strap (strap)..............  6420-66301-119 or -127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance: Required as indicated.
    To detect cracking in the rotary rudder boom or pylon due to
fatigue, and to prevent failure from static overload and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Within 20 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 hours TIS:
    (1) Visually inspect each transition fitting, P/N 6420-66341-
101, -102, -103, or -104, for a crack or working rivets on the
inboard face of the rotary rudder boom and pylon, paying particular
attention to the fastener attachment holes, as depicted in Figure 1,
Detail A, of the Accomplishment Instructions in Erickson Air-Crane
Incorporated Service Bulletin No. 64B20-6, Revision A, dated
December 12, 2007 (SB).
    (2) Visually inspect the outboard face of each rotary rudder
boom and pylon skin panel (skin panel) that attaches to the
transition fittings for a crack or working rivets in the transition
fitting attachment areas, paying particular attention to the
fastener attachment holes, as shown in Figure 1, Detail B, of the
Accomplishment Instructions in the SB.
    (3) Visually inspect the forward and aft sides of each bulkhead
assembly, P/N 6420-66340-041, -043, or -044, for a crack. Pay
particular attention to the circled areas shown in Figure 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions in the SB.
    (4) Visually inspect the upper 12 inches of each strap, P/N
6420-66301-119 or -127, for a crack or for working rivets as shown
in Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions in the SB.
    (5) Visually inspect the pylon for a crack or working rivets on
each side of the upper 12 inches of the strap, and also 6 inches
above the end of the strap as shown in Figure 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions in the SB.
    (b) For any pylon with a strap installed, within 155 hours TIS,
unless previously accomplished, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 155 hours TIS, remove the inspection access covers, P/N 6420-
66304-109 and P/N 6420-66303-125, on the forward and aft sides of
the pylon and visually inspect the left-hand cap angle (longeron),
P/N 6420-66304-136, and the interior area of the pylon adjacent to
the upper 12 inches of the strap, as well as 6 inches above the end
of the strap, for a crack or working rivets, as shown in Figure 3 of
the Accomplishment Instructions in the SB.
    (c) At each transition fitting replacement, which is required at
intervals not to exceed 8,300 hours TIS:
    (1) With each transition fitting removed, visually inspect both
sides of each skin panel for a crack in the areas to which the
transition fitting attaches, paying particular attention to the
fastener attachment holes, as

depicted in Details A and B, Figure 1, of the Accomplishment
Instructions in the SB.
    (2) Perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of each skin
panel for a crack in the areas around the fastener holes where the
transition fittings attach to the rotary rudder boom and pylon.
    (d) Before further flight, accomplish the following:
    (1) If you cannot visually determine that a crack does not exist
in a part, inspect the part and the surrounding area using a 10-
power or higher magnifying glass.
    (2) If you cannot determine that a crack does not exist in a
part other than a strap after inspecting it with a 10-power or
higher magnifying glass, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection
of the part.
    (3) If you cannot determine that a crack does not exist in a
strap after inspecting it with a 10-power or higher magnifying
glass, perform a magnetic particle inspection of the strap.
    (e) If a crack is found, before further flight, replace any
cracked part with an airworthy part, or repair the cracked part if
the damage is within the maximum repair damage limits.

    Note: The maximum repair damage limitations are stated in the
applicable Component and Repair Overhaul Manual.

    (f) If any loose or working rivets are found, before further
flight, remove the rivets and visually inspect the fastener holes
and surrounding area for a crack or any other damage. Replace any
part that is cracked with an airworthy part; replace any damaged
part with damage exceeding the maximum repair damage limits with an
airworthy part or repair any damaged part that is within the maximum
repair damage limits. Also, replace any loose or working rivets.
    (g) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN:
Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort Worth, Texas
76193-0170, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
information about previously approved alternative methods of
compliance.
    (h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where
the inspection requirements of this AD can be accomplished. No
special flight permits will be issued to accomplish replacements or
repairs, or if a crack is suspected.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 14, 2008.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-28109 Filed 11-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26351-26353]
[DOCID:fr09my08-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2008.

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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; 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-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2008-0071, dated April 15, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.
    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected
values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables.

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

Relevant Service Information

    APEX Aircraft has issued Service Bulletin No. 030502, dated April
11, 2008. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 31 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,480, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

APEX Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier
2008-CE-030-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 9, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to CAP 10 B airplanes, all serial numbers up
to and including 282, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 08: Leveling
and Weighing.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.

    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected
values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, incorporate Apex
Aircraft AVION CAP 10 B Document Number 1000977 GB, Revision 8,
dated February 2007 into the limitations section of the airplane
flight manual as specified in APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No.
030502, dated April 11, 2008. The owner/operator holding at least a
private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR 43.7 may do this action. Make an
entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion
of the AD following 14 CFR 43.9.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2008-0071, dated April 15, 2008; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. 030502, dated April 11, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 2, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-10348 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71413-71414]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-413-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of USG Oregon LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 10, 2012.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 20, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28966 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 6547]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-28-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e): COH Rates effective
1-31-2018.
    Filed Date: 2/2/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>58.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-298-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Adjusted CCRM 2018--Compliance to be
effective 2/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-428-000.
    Applicants: Enstor Energy Services, LLC, Castleton Commodities
International LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of Enstor Energy Services, LLC, et al.
for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies and
Request for Expedited Treatment.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-429-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreements--2
in compliance with CP15-93 Order to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180207-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-430-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement
List--2 to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180207-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-431-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2018.
    Filed Date: 2/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180207-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-432-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amended Negotiated Rate
Agreement--Tenaska Mktg Ventures to be effective 2/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180207-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-433-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: List of Non-Conforming Service
Agreements (VSS II and Clean-Up) to be effective 8/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180207-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 8, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03021 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P