[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72301-72306]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30115]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM11-15-000; Order No. 894]

Bidding by Affiliates in Open Seasons for Pipeline Capacity

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
revises its regulations governing interstate natural gas pipelines to
prohibit multiple affiliates of the same entity from bidding in an open
season for pipeline capacity in which the pipeline may allocate
capacity on a pro rata basis, unless each affiliate has an independent
business reason for submitting a bid. The Commission does not find it
necessary to adopt its proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
that if more than one affiliate of the same entity participates in such
an open season, then none of those affiliates may release any capacity
obtained in that open season pursuant to a pro rata allocation to any
affiliate, or otherwise allow any affiliate to obtain the use of the
allowed capacity.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective December 23,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Kunz, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-6102.
Michael Strzelecki, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-6075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                  No.

I. Background...............................................           2
II. Need for the Rule.......................................           9
III. Prohibition on Multiple Affiliate Bidding in Open                13
 Seasons for Pipeline Capacity..............................
IV. Prohibition on Release of Capacity......................          27
V. Information Collection Statement.........................          35
VI. Environmental Analysis..................................          36
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................          37
VIII. Document Availability.................................          39
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...........          42

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.
(Issued November 17, 2011)
    1. In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its Part 284
regulations governing interstate natural gas pipelines to prohibit
multiple affiliates of the same entity from bidding in an open season
for pipeline capacity in which the pipeline may allocate capacity on a
pro rata basis, unless each affiliate has an independent business
reason for submitting a bid. The Commission does not find it necessary
to adopt its proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \1\ that if
more than one affiliate of the same entity participates in such an open
season, then none of those affiliates may release any capacity obtained
in that open season pursuant to a pro rata allocation to any affiliate,
or otherwise allow any affiliate to obtain the use of the allowed
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bidding by Affiliates in Open Seasons for Pipeline Capacity,
76 FR 20571 (Apr. 13, 2011), FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 32,673 (2011)
(NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Open Seasons for Pipeline Capacity

    2. The Commission's policy under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \2\ is
to allocate available interstate pipeline capacity to the shipper that
values it the most, up to the maximum rate.\3\ In furtherance of this
goal, the Commission favors the use of open seasons to allocate
capacity and permits but does not require a net present value (NPV)
evaluation as a tool for determining the highest valued use.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717 et al. (2006).
    \3\ N. Natural Gas Co., 108 FERC ] 61,044, at P 11 (2004);
Texican N. La. Transport, LLC v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 129 FERC
] 61,270, at P 70 (2009) (Texican I), order on reh'g, 132 FERC ]
61,167, at P 23, 26 (2010) (Texican II).
    \4\ Texican II, 132 FERC ] 61,167 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Some pipelines hold open seasons to alert shippers to the
availability of capacity on the pipeline and allow the shippers to bid
for available capacity. The pipeline's open season process is an open
and transparent procedure that is set forth in the pipeline's tariff.
The pipeline notifies shippers of the availability of capacity by
posting an open season notice on its EBB and/or Web site for the
available capacity. During the open season, the Commission requires
pipelines to sell all available capacity to shippers willing to pay the
pipeline's maximum recourse rate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 65916 (Nov. 26, 2007), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,625, at P 40 (2007) (citing Tenn. Gas Pipeline
Co., 91 FERC ] 61,053 (2000), reh'g denied, 94 FERC ] 61,097 (2001),
petitions for review denied sub nom., Process Gas Consumers Group v.
FERC, 292 F.3d 831, 837 (DC Cir. 2002)).

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

    4. NPV is a method for awarding capacity from the bids received
during the open season.\6\ NPV is a standard method of evaluating bids
for capacity by using the time value of money to determine the present
value of a time series of discounted cash flows.\7\ The highest bidder,
based on the NPV of the bid, receives the capacity. Factors determining
NPV are price, volume of gas, and duration of the contract. The
Commission has stated that a ``net present value evaluation * * *
allocates capacity to the shipper who will produce the greatest revenue
and the least unsubscribed capacity. As such, it is an economically
efficient way of allocating capacity and is consistent with Commission
policy.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NPV is not the only method a pipeline could use. Another is
the ``first come-first served'' approach, where the first shipper to
submit a qualifying bid receives the capacity.
    \7\ Saltville Gas Storage Co., L.L.C., 128 FERC ] 61,257, at P 2
n.3 (2009).
    \8\ Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 76 FERC ] 61,101, at 61,522 (1996),
order on reh'g, 79 FERC ] 61,297 (1997), order on reh'g, 82 FERC ]
61,008 (1998), remanded sub nom. Process Gas Consumers Group v.
FERC, 177 F.3d 995 (DC Cir. 1999), order on compliance, 91 FERC ]
61,333 (2000), order on remand, 91 FERC ] 61,053 (2000), reh'g
denied, 94 FERC ] 61,097 (2001), petitions for review denied sub
nom. Process Gas Consumers Group v. FERC, 292 F.3d 831, 837 (DC Cir.
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In the event that there is not sufficient capacity to meet all
equal maximum bids, pipelines apply a tiebreaker mechanism. One such
mechanism is the pro rata allocation methodology. Under a pro rata
allocation tiebreaker mechanism, in the event that there is not
sufficient capacity to meet all qualifying bids, the capacity is
allocated pro rata, i.e., based on the ratio of each shipper's
respective nomination to all qualifying nominations, applied to the
total available capacity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An alternative tiebreaker mechanism for multiple maximum
bids is to award the capacity to the earliest applicant. The
Commission has stated that ``no single tiebreaker method is
definitely better than other methods; each system has advantages and
disadvantages * * *. So long as its method is reasonable [a
pipeline] may choose any method it wishes for inclusion as the
default tiebreaker in its tariff.'' Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 103
FERC ] 61,225, at 61,869 (2003), order on reh'g and compliance
filing, 108 FERC ] 61,049, at 61,305 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The NOPR

    6. On April 7, 2011, the Commission issued the NOPR, in which it
proposed to add a new section 284.15 to its regulations prohibiting
multiple affiliates of the same entity from bidding in an open season
for pipeline capacity conducted by any interstate pipeline providing
service under subparts B and G of Part 284 of the Commission's
regulations in which the pipeline may allocate capacity on a pro rata
basis, unless each affiliate has an independent business reason for
submitting a bid. The Commission also proposed that if more than one
affiliate of the same entity participates in such an open season, then
none of those affiliates may release any capacity obtained in that open
season pursuant to a pro rata allocation to any affiliate, or otherwise
allow any affiliate to obtain the use of the allowed capacity. The
Commission proposed that, for purposes of the new regulation, the term
``affiliate'' be defined as provided in section 358.3(a)(1) and (3) of
the Commission's existing regulations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 18 CFR 358.3(a)(1), (3) (2010). Section 358.3(a)(1)
provides that an affiliate of a specified entity is ``another person
that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with, the
specified entity. An affiliate includes a division of the specified
entity that operates as a functional unit.'' Section 358.3(a)(3)
defines the term ``control.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission explained that some entities had developed and
applied a strategy of bidding with multiple affiliates in open seasons
for available capacity in order to defeat the pro rata allocation
tiebreaker mechanism and obtain a greater share of the available
capacity than a single bidder could have acquired by itself.\11\ The
Commission further explained that, where the available capacity is
finite, the price is capped by the pipeline's maximum tariff rate, and
the tiebreaker is a pro rata allocation, shippers can obtain more
capacity than they would be able to obtain themselves by bidding
multiple affiliates to defeat the pro rata allocation mechanism.\12\
The Commission stated that each affiliate with a maximum NPV bid could
then release the capacity to a single affiliate or otherwise allow its
affiliate effectively to obtain the use of the allocated capacity.\13\
The Commission concluded that such gaming of the pro rata allocation
mechanism has a chilling effect on competition and permits entities
that apply a multiple affiliate bidding strategy inappropriately to
gain a disproportionate share of available capacity by denying a fair
distribution to all maximum rate bidders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,673 at P 6.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id. P 7.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments

    8. Comments on the NOPR were due on May 31, 2011. Twelve parties
filed comments.\15\ In general, commenters support the Commission's
efforts to prevent anticompetitive gaming of the pro rata allocation
methodology. However, many commenters request that the Commission
modify or clarify the proposal in various ways. We discuss the comments
below in the context of reviewing each aspect of this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comments were filed by American Gas Association (AGA);
Capital Power Corporation (Capital Power); Southern Company
Services, Inc. (SCS); DTE Energy Company (DTE Energy); Process Gas
Consumers Group (PGC); Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC (AEM); American
Public Gas Association (APGA); Natural Gas Supply Association
(NGSA); Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA);
National Energy Marketers Association (NEM); Sequent Energy
Management, L.P. (Sequent); and Seminole Energy Services, LLC
(Seminole).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Need for the Rule

A. The NOPR

    9. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that it has come to its
attention that some entities have developed and applied a strategy of
bidding with multiple affiliates in open seasons for available capacity
in order to defeat the pro rata allocation tiebreaker mechanism and
obtain a greater share of the available capacity than a single bidder
could acquire by itself.\16\ The Commission stated that such gaming of
the pro rata allocation mechanism has a chilling effect on competition
and permits entities that apply a multiple affiliate bidding strategy
inappropriately to gain a disproportionate share of available capacity
by denying a fair distribution to all maximum rate bidders. The
Commission also recognized that multiple affiliate bidding behavior
frustrates the Commission's policy of allocating capacity to the
shipper that values it the most. Finally, the Commission stated that
the proposed rule would provide clear notice to parties of prohibited
behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NOPR at P 6-8 (citing Tenaska Marketing Ventures, et al.,
126 FERC ] 61,040 (2009) (order approving stipulations and
agreements). See also Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 101 FERC ] 61,405
(2002), order on technical conference and denying reh'g, 103 FERC ]
61,225 (2003), order on reh'g and compliance filing, 108 FERC ]
61,049 (2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    10. CPC contends that the proposed prohibition on multiple
affiliate bidding is unnecessary because the Commission has clearly
articulated its policy and there is an enforcement mechanism in place
to ensure compliance. CPC explains that if multiple affiliates are
awarded capacity to the detriment of a third party, that third party
may contact the Commission's enforcement staff. All other commenters
support adoption of a regulation clarifying the Commission's rules
concerning affiliate participation

in open seasons for pipeline capacity, although most commenters request
modifications to the specific regulation proposed in the NOPR.

C. Commission Determination

    11. In the Commission's view, amendments to our existing
regulations are necessary to prevent an entity from using multiple
affiliates to secure a larger allocation of capacity than it could
acquire by itself. Under conditions where the available capacity is
limited and the value of the capacity is high, shippers are strongly
motivated to obtain as much of that valuable capacity as possible in
order to take advantage of the opportunity for profit. Where the
available capacity is finite, the price is capped by the pipeline's
maximum tariff rate, and the tiebreaker is a pro rata allocation,
shippers can obtain more capacity than they would be able to obtain by
themselves by bidding multiple affiliates to defeat the pro rata
allocation mechanism. Such gaming of the pro rata allocation mechanism
has the effect of harming entities that submit only one bid, and by
extension, harming their customers, and has a chilling effect on
competition.
    12. While the Commission has recently addressed the issue of
multiple affiliate bidding, the Commission believes that further
regulatory action is necessary. In the Commission's view, amendments to
the existing regulations are needed to provide clear notice to parties
participating in open seasons for interstate pipeline capacity that
multiple affiliate bidding is prohibited, unless a participating
affiliate has its own independent business reason for submitting a bid.
Clarification of the prohibited behavior should facilitate compliance
with the prohibition. Entities may contact the Commission's enforcement
staff in the case of a possible violation.

III. Prohibition on Multiple Affiliate Bidding in Open Seasons for
Pipeline Capacity

A. The NOPR

    13. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise its regulations
governing interstate natural gas pipelines to prohibit multiple
affiliates of the same entity from bidding in an open season for
pipeline capacity in which the pipeline may allocate capacity on a pro
rata basis, unless each affiliate has an independent business reason
for submitting a bid. The Commission stated that this proposed rule is
designed to ensure that an entity cannot use multiple affiliates solely
to secure a larger allocation of capacity than it could acquire by
itself.\17\ The Commission explained that multiple affiliate bidding
lessens competition because other bidders not engaging in similar
conduct will receive less capacity--not because such bidders value the
capacity any less, but because they bid only through the unit of the
company intending to use the capacity or because they did not have
multiple affiliates.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. P 14.
    \18\ Id. P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Commission recognized that not all multiple affiliate
bidding is used to defeat a pro rata allocation mechanism, and that in
some cases, affiliates may have independent business reasons for
submitting their bids.\19\ However, the Commission stated that it is
impossible to describe in advance every situation that demonstrates an
independent business reason.\20\ Therefore, the Commission provided two
scenarios designed to be illustrative of situations in which a business
unit uses awarded capacity to serve its own customers or otherwise acts
consistently with its business plan, interests, and obligations.\21\
The Commission further stated that indications that a company is not
acting independently would be if the business unit is used by its
parent or affiliate in a way that differs from its usual business
operations, is used to perform transactions that an affiliate or parent
could not, or is acting as an ``alter ego'' of an affiliate or parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. P 11.
    \20\ Id. P 13.
    \21\ ``For example, a marketing arm of an energy company may bid
to secure capacity for its wholesale customers and a retail
operation of the same company may bid to secure capacity to serve
its retail customers, and each would have an independent business
reason for its bid. Or a marketing company may have two or more
affiliates operating in different geographic areas, thus serving
distinct markets all of which may be served by transportation on the
same pipeline. When affiliates bid in such cases, other bidders are
not unduly harmed, undue discrimination is not practiced, and
Commission policy is not violated.'' Id. P 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    15. Parties generally support the Commission's proposed prohibition
on multiple affiliate bidding. These parties agree that the
Commission's proposal should provide clarity to its policies and help
to prevent anticompetitive gaming of the pro rata allocation
methodology.
    16. Certain parties express concerns over the scope and specific
elements of the proposed prohibition. CPC argues that the prohibition
is not reasonably tailored to meet the Commission's goals because the
rule would affect virtually every open season, whether or not capacity
is constrained or whether or not any other prospective shipper is
denied access to capacity. Some parties assert that the Commission
should provide more detailed, objective criteria as to what constitutes
an ``independent business reason'' that would allow affiliated entities
to bid on constrained capacity, or create safe harbors or a bright-line
test for what constitutes an ``independent business reason.'' For
example, NGSA suggests that criteria might include whether the
prospective affiliated shippers each had separate contracts to purchase
or supply gas; whether the capacity was bid for in conjunction with a
distinct retail provider obligation, internal use, or specific new
supply project; or whether affiliates bidding operate out of different
geographic locations or countries.
    17. AGA argues that the proposed rule would burden participation in
pipeline open seasons because every market participant with affiliates
would be required to document an independent business reason each time
it bids. AGA states that the potential number of affiliates could be
expansive, and that in many cases a market participant would have no
way of knowing whether some of its affiliates intended to or did submit
a bid in the same pipeline season. AGA suggests that the Commission
modify proposed section 284.15(a) to focus narrowly on the conduct that
is considered manipulative by prohibiting participation in an open
season ``for the purpose of obtaining a larger allocation of capacity
for one affiliate than that affiliate could acquire for itself,'' and
not tying the prohibition to the absence of an independent business
reason for participation in the open season.
    18. AGA further requests clarification that entities that operate
in multiple jurisdictions either as affiliated entities or a single
corporate entity with multiple operative divisions may submit multiple
bids on behalf of two or more affiliates or divisions where each
affiliate or division has its own need for the capacity. SCS requests
clarification that its practice of acting as agent for its affiliates
by submitting one bid for the total capacity needed by its affiliates
would not trigger the proposed prohibition on multiple affiliate
bidding. INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that pipelines are
not required to determine whether open season bidders or releasing
shippers are affiliated or whether bidders have independent business
reasons for their bids.
    19. APGA suggests that, if affiliates of the same entity
participate in an open season for pipeline capacity, each be required
to identify itself as such in its bid and that any award of open season

capacity likewise note that fact. APGA asserts that an affiliation
between entities may not be self-evident from the name of the entity,
and this would put the public on notice that the rule is applicable and
must be satisfied.
    20. Finally, DTE Energy argues that the Commission should exempt
traditional gas and electric utilities from the definition of
``affiliate'' used in the NOPR, as state public service commission
review of these utilities' activities provides sufficient protection
against manipulative practices.

C. Commission Determination

    21. In this Final Rule, the Commission adopts section 284.15(a) as
proposed in the NOPR. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to
prohibit multiple affiliates of the same entity from participating in
an open season for pipeline capacity in which the pipeline may allocate
capacity on a pro rata basis, unless each affiliate has an independent
business reason for submitting a bid. This prohibition will help to
prevent shippers from using multiple affiliates to defeat the pro rata
allocation tiebreaker mechanism and obtain a greater share of available
capacity than a single bidder could acquire by itself.
    22. As recognized in the NOPR, not all multiple affiliate bidding
is used to defeat a pro rata allocation mechanism. Therefore, section
284.15(a) provides an exception for affiliates that have independent
business reasons for submitting their bids. For example, a marketing
arm of an energy company may bid to secure capacity for its wholesale
customers and a retail operation of the same company may bid to secure
capacity to serve its retail customers, and each would have an
independent business reason for its bid. Or a marketing company may
have two or more affiliates operating in different geographic areas,
thus serving distinct markets all of which may be served by
transportation on the same pipeline. The prohibition against multiple
affiliate bidding in section 284.15(a) is reasonably tailored to the
harm the Commission is seeking to prevent, as it only restricts the
participation of affiliates that do not have an independent business
reason for bidding.
    23. Various commenters request further clarification of what
constitutes an independent business reason. As the Commission explained
in the NOPR, it is impossible to describe in advance every situation
that demonstrates an independent business reason. However, our intent
in permitting bidding by multiple affiliates where each has its own
independent business reason for bidding is to allow each affiliate to
acquire capacity which will facilitate or enhance its ability to
provide service of value to its own customers or otherwise help
accomplish its own business goals. The phrase ``independent business
reason'' should be interpreted and applied in specific situations
consistent with that intent.
    24. The scenarios described in P 22 above illustrate situations
where each affiliate or business unit has an independent business
reason to participate in an open season, because each is seeking
pipeline capacity in order to transport natural gas to its own sales
customers. Commenters have suggested various other scenarios in which
an affiliate or business unit may use awarded capacity to accomplish
its own business objectives and thus have an independent business
reason for participating in an open season. For example, an affiliate
may use natural gas to operate an industrial plant, refinery, or
electric generation facility, and seek pipeline capacity to transport
natural gas to that facility.\22\ A producer affiliate may be
developing a new production field and seek pipeline capacity to
transport natural gas produced from that field to market.\23\ A
marketer affiliate participating in a retail access program may seek
pipeline capacity to serve its retail customers in that program.\24\ A
marketer affiliate may also seek pipeline capacity to transport natural
gas to any other type of customer to whom it ordinarily sells natural
gas. In all of these scenarios, the affiliate or business unit is
seeking pipeline capacity to transport natural gas which it will
consume in its own business operations or sell to others as part of its
ordinary course of business. In such circumstances, the affiliate may
participate in an open season, regardless of whether any other
affiliate may participate in the same open season.\25\ By contrast,
indications that a company is not acting independently would be if the
business unit is used by its parent or affiliate in a way that differs
from its usual business operations, is used to perform transactions
that an affiliate or parent could not, or is acting as an ``alter ego''
of an affiliate or parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NGSA at 4; PGC at 3; AGA at 7.
    \23\ NGSA at 4.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ As requested by SCS and AGA, the Commission also clarifies
that a group of affiliated electric generators or gas distribution
companies operating in different geographic areas may designate a
single affiliate as their gas purchasing agent and that affiliate
may participate in an open season to obtain pipeline capacity to
serve all the affiliates in the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. AGA argues that the proposed rule would burden participation in
pipeline open seasons because each market participant would be required
to document an independent business reason each time it bids and would
have no way of knowing whether some of its affiliates submitted a bid.
We disagree. First, the rule requires an affiliate to do no more than
any reasonably prudent company would do when considering whether to bid
in an open season for pipeline capacity. Before submitting a bid, the
affiliate must decide whether and how much of the subject capacity it
needs in order to accomplish its own business objectives, and it should
maintain some record of the basis for its determination. The rule does
not include any specific documentation requirement. Second, each
affiliate only need concern itself with whether it, individually, has
an independent business reason for bidding. The rule does not require
that an entity coordinate with its affiliates to establish how its
independent business reason differs from the business reasons of the
other affiliates. In fact, not coordinating with affiliates would help
to avoid the appearance of multiple affiliate bidding behavior.
Similarly, if state public service commission review prevents gas and
electric utilities from acquiring gas transportation for purposes not
related to serving customers, as DTE Energy asserts, then it should not
be burdensome for these entities to establish an independent business
purpose. We therefore do not find it necessary to modify proposed
section 284.15(a) or the proposed definition of ``affiliate.''
    26. We do not find it necessary to require that each affiliate
identify itself as such and that any award of open season capacity note
the affiliation. In order for multiple affiliates of the same entity to
participate in an open season for pipeline capacity in which the
pipeline may allocate capacity on a pro rata basis, each affiliate must
have an independent business reason for submitting a bid. Therefore,
consumers should be protected by the rule even if each affiliate is not
labeled as such. We also note that each affiliate has the
responsibility to ensure that it has an independent business reason for
submitting a bid, not the pipeline conducting the open season.

IV. Prohibition on Release of Capacity

A. The NOPR

    27. The Commission also proposed that if more than one affiliate of
the same entity participates in such an open season, then none of those
affiliates may

release any capacity obtained in that open season pursuant to a pro
rata allocation to any affiliate, or otherwise allow any affiliate to
obtain the use of the allowed capacity. The Commission noted that some
companies bidding with multiple affiliates have used capacity release
as the final step in consolidating multiple shares of capacity for use
by one of the company's units.\26\ The Commission explained that, by
releasing the capacity acquired in the open season, affiliates are able
to transfer the capacity each acquires to a single company that
benefits by obtaining more capacity than it could have obtained by
itself.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,673 at P 15 (citing Tenaska
Marketing Ventures, et al., 126 FERC ] 61,040 at P 13, 18).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    28. Parties generally argue that the capacity release prohibition,
as drafted, is overbroad and would have a chilling effect on the
capacity release markets. For example, AGA argues that where an
affiliate complies with section 284.15(a) and legitimately obtains
capacity in an open season with a pro rata allocation, that affiliate
should be permitted to release its capacity to any entity under the
normal capacity release rules applicable to all other shippers. It
argues that this is especially the case if the releasing affiliate
posts the release for bidding and has no control over who might acquire
the released capacity. AGA further states that, if the proposed
capacity release prohibition is adopted, an affiliate legitimately
obtaining capacity in an open season may be reluctant to offer capacity
to the release market for fear that an affiliate would be the winning
bidder for the capacity.
    29. Parties argue that, if the prohibition on capacity release is
adopted, various clarifications are required. For example, AGA argues
that the Commission should clarify that the prohibition on capacity
release only applies where the affiliate cannot establish an
independent business reason for bidding, and that, if an entity with
multiple affiliates acquires capacity in an open season with a pro rata
allocation and releases that capacity in a competitive bidding process
where the winning bidder is an unaffiliated third party, an affiliate
could subsequently acquire the capacity from that party. CPC proposes
alternative language to the proposed regulation that would clarify that
a ban on capacity release (1) Only applies to the extent two affiliates
actually receive a pro rata award of capacity, and (2) expires after a
reasonable period, such as two years. Numerous parties state that the
Commission should clarify that the prohibition on capacity release does
not apply to releases of pipeline capacity to (1) Qualifying asset
managers as part of an Asset Management Agreement or (2) marketers
participating in a state commission-regulated retail access program.
PGC urges the Commission to recognize that, if industrial end-users
decide to realign their natural gas purchasing and transportation
practices to central management in order to maximize corporate
efficiencies, capacity releases between affiliates may be required.
    30. Parties also express concern that seeking waiver of the
capacity release prohibition would be overly burdensome.

C. Commission Determination

    31. In light of the comments received, the Commission has
reconsidered its proposal and has decided not to adopt the proposed
prohibition on capacity release. The prohibition on capacity release,
proposed as section 284.15(b) in the NOPR, was intended to provide an
additional deterrent to affiliates bidding for capacity for which they
have no independent use. However, any behavior that the Commission
intended to fall under the capacity release prohibition is covered by
the prohibition on multiple affiliate bidding in proposed section
284.15(a). Therefore, the Commission believes that the prohibition on
multiple affiliate bidding in proposed section 284.15(a) is sufficient
to prohibit the subject conduct without the additional capacity release
prohibition.
    32. Furthermore, we appreciate commenters' concern that the
capacity release prohibition could have a chilling effect on
affiliates' participation in the capacity release markets. The
Commission adopted the capacity release program in order to promote
efficient use of firm pipeline capacity throughout the year.\28\ For
example, the capacity release program permits a firm shipper to release
its capacity to another shipper during periods when the release shipper
does not need its capacity. This allows the releasing shipper to reduce
its cost of reserving capacity and enables other shippers who value the
capacity more to use it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market,
Order No. 712, 73 FR 37058 (June 30, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,271, at P 4 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 712-A, 73 FR 72692
(Dec. 1, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,284 (2008), order on reh'g,
Order No. 712-B, 74 FR 18127 (Apr. 21, 2009), 127 FERC ] 61,051
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Upon further consideration, the Commission has determined that
an affiliate who legitimately obtains capacity in an open season for
its own independent business purposes should be permitted to release
that capacity to any entity under the normal capacity release rules
applicable to all other shippers. This will enable affiliates to obtain
the same benefits from capacity release as other shippers. We note,
however, that the Commission may consider what an entity does with its
awarded capacity, such as subsequently releasing the capacity to an
affiliate on a long-term basis, as a factor in the determination of
whether the entity in fact had an independent business reason to obtain
the capacity.
    34. The Commission will therefore promulgate the Final Rule without
the prohibition on capacity release. This Final Rule, as amended,
should prevent anticompetitive gaming of the pro rata allocation
methodology by using multiple affiliates of the same entity to acquire
a larger share of the available capacity than one affiliate would be
able to acquire by itself.

V. Information Collection Statement

    35. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\29\ This rule contains no new or revised information
collections. Therefore, OMB review of this Final Rule is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Environmental Analysis

    36. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\30\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\31\ The actions proposed to be taken here fall within
categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that
are corrective, clarifying or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of
facilities.\32\ Therefore an environmental review is

unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \31\ 18 CFR 380.4 (2011).
    \32\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), and 380.4(a)(27)
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    37. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \33\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect.\34\ Most companies regulated
by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small
entity.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2006).
    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2006).
    \35\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (citing section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2006)). Section 3 defines a ``small-business
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. This Final Rule should have no significant negative impact on
those entities, be they large or small, subject to the Commission's
regulatory jurisdiction under the NGA. Most companies to which the
Final Rule applies do not fall within the RFA's definition of small
entities. In addition, this Final Rule is only triggered if more than
one affiliate of the same entity participates in an open season for
pipeline capacity in which the pipeline may allocate capacity on a pro
rata basis, and each affiliate does not have an independent business
reason for submitting a bid. Therefore, the rule would only affect a
limited number of small entities. This Final Rule will not have a
significant economic effect on these small entities. Therefore, the
Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Document Availability

    39. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    40. 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.
    41. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site 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>
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    42. These regulations are effective December 23, 2011. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Spitzer is not participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 284,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Section 284.15 is added to subpart A to read as follows.

Sec.  284.15  Bidding by affiliates in open seasons for pipeline
capacity.

    (a) Multiple affiliates of the same entity may not participate in
an open season for pipeline capacity conducted by any interstate
pipeline providing service under subparts B and G of this part, in
which the pipeline may allocate capacity on a pro rata basis, unless
each affiliate has an independent business reason for submitting a bid.
    (b) For purposes of this section, an affiliate is any person that
satisfies the definition of affiliate in Sec.  358.3(a)(1) and (3) of
this chapter with respect to another entity participating in an open
season subject to paragraph (a) of this section.

[FR Doc. 2011-30115 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25101-25102]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69433; File No. 4-661]

Credit Ratings Roundtable

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of roundtable discussion; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission will host a one day
roundtable to discuss various matters related to credit ratings. The
roundtable will consist of three panels. The first panel will examine
issues in connection with the possibility of developing a credit rating
assignment system. The second panel will discuss the effectiveness of
the Commission's current system under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for encouraging unsolicited ratings of asset-backed securities.
The third panel will focus on other potential alternatives to the
current issuer pay business model.
    The roundtable discussion will be held in Room L-006 (the multi-
purpose room) at the Securities and Exchange Commission's headquarters
located at 100 F Street NE., in Washington, DC 20549. The public is
invited to observe the roundtable discussion. Seating will be available
on a first-come, first-served basis. The roundtable discussion also
will be available via webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov.

DATES: The roundtable discussion will take place on May 14, 2013. The
Commission will accept comments regarding issues addressed at the
roundtable until June 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-661 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-661. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/other.shtml). Comments are
also 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.
All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davey at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Credit Ratings, Securities and Exchange Commission, 3 World
Financial Center, New York, NY 10281-1022.

    Dated: April 23, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09931 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59848-59850]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31396; Amdt. No. 3980]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 29, 2021. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending
the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP
is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National
Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is
incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14
CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the
need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction
on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the
advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication
of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with
their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the
airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria
contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2021.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRAC date            State             City               Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Dec-21.................  PA           Lehighton..........  Jake Arner Meml....       1/0322      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1C.
2-Dec-21.................  IL           Canton.............  Ingersoll..........       1/0530       9/2/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1C.

2-Dec-21.................  IL           Canton.............  Ingersoll..........       1/0538       9/2/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1B.
2-Dec-21.................  IL           Canton.............  Ingersoll..........       1/0539       9/2/21  VOR-A, Amdt 8A.
2-Dec-21.................  TX           Levelland..........  Levelland Muni.....       1/0857      9/23/21  Takeoff Minimum and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4.
2-Dec-21.................  ME           Biddeford..........  Biddeford Muni.....       1/1080      10/4/21  VOR RWY 6, Orig-A.
2-Dec-21.................  ME           Biddeford..........  Biddeford Muni.....       1/1082      10/4/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-A.
2-Dec-21.................  TN           Paris..............  Henry County.......       1/1193      8/19/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Malvern............  Malvern Muni.......       1/1203      7/12/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-B.
2-Dec-21.................  AL           Tuscaloosa.........  Tuscaloosa Ntl.....       1/1418      7/29/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 14F.
2-Dec-21.................  ID           Gooding............  Gooding Muni.......       1/1628      8/20/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1.
2-Dec-21.................  SD           Aberdeen...........  Aberdeen Rgnl......       1/1660      10/4/21  VOR RWY 31, Amdt 21A.
2-Dec-21.................  WV           Buckhannon.........  Upshur County Rgnl.       1/2582      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2C.
2-Dec-21.................  WV           Buckhannon.........  Upshur County Rgnl.       1/2584      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 2C.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Clinton............  Holley Mountain           1/2950      8/10/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1B.
                                                              Airpark.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Exec.........       1/3806      8/24/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 11D.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Exec.........       1/3807      8/24/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Amdt 2D.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Exec.........       1/3808      8/24/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Orig-B.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Exec.........       1/3811      8/24/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L, Orig-C.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Exec.........       1/3812      8/24/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 2D.
2-Dec-21.................  NY           Buffalo............  Buffalo Niagara           1/4396      8/13/21  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5, Amdt 2D.
                                                              Intl.
2-Dec-21.................  NY           Buffalo............  Buffalo Niagara           1/4397      8/13/21  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Amdt 2C.
                                                              Intl.
2-Dec-21.................  NY           Buffalo............  Buffalo Niagara           1/4398      8/13/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2B.
                                                              Intl.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4443      9/29/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 2.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4444      9/29/21  LOC BC RWY 26, Amdt 2.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4445      9/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4446      9/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4447      9/29/21  VOR RWY 26, Amdt 2.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Utqiagvik..........  Wiley Post-Will           1/4448      9/29/21  Takeoff Minimum and Obstacle DP, Orig-B.
                                                              Rogers Meml.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Winter Haven.......  Winter Haven Rgnl..       1/4455       9/9/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1D.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Arctic Village.....  Arctic Village.....       1/4508       7/8/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Arctic Village.....  Arctic Village.....       1/4509       7/8/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Ruby...............  Ruby...............       1/4578       7/7/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Ruby...............  Ruby...............       1/4579       7/7/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1B.
2-Dec-21.................  OH           Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins         1/4640      10/4/21  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24L, Amdt 5.
                                                              Intl.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5143      7/12/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 16.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5144      7/12/21  LOC BC RWY 4, Amdt 13.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5146      7/12/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5147      7/12/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5148      7/12/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5150      7/12/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-B.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  AR           Texarkana..........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb       1/5151      7/12/21  VOR RWY 13, Amdt 16A.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  OK           Seminole...........  Seminole Muni......       1/5744      7/28/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1A.
2-Dec-21.................  TN           Fayetteville.......  Fayetteville Muni..       1/6610      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig.
2-Dec-21.................  TN           Fayetteville.......  Fayetteville Muni..       1/6611      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1A.
2-Dec-21.................  TN           Fayetteville.......  Fayetteville Muni..       1/6612      7/29/21  VOR/DME RWY 2, Orig-E.
2-Dec-21.................  CA           Hemet..............  Hemet-Ryan.........       1/6910      10/1/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-D.
2-Dec-21.................  AK           Ketchikan..........  Ketchikan Intl.....       1/7255      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig.
2-Dec-21.................  CA           Rio Vista..........  Rio Vista Muni.....       1/7826      8/17/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 3D.
2-Dec-21.................  VT           Highgate...........  Franklin County           1/7997      10/5/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 3A.
                                                              State.
2-Dec-21.................  LA           Marksville.........  Marksville Muni....       1/8329      7/20/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-B.
2-Dec-21.................  NY           Watertown..........  Watertown Intl.....       1/8385       9/2/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 8.
2-Dec-21.................  WI           Clintonville.......  Clintonville Muni..       1/8409       9/2/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1A.
2-Dec-21.................  KS           Great Bend.........  Great Bend Muni....       1/8610      7/20/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig-C.
2-Dec-21.................  KS           Great Bend.........  Great Bend Muni....       1/8611      7/20/21  NDB RWY 35, Amdt 3A.
2-Dec-21.................  KS           Great Bend.........  Great Bend Muni....       1/8612      7/20/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B.
2-Dec-21.................  KS           Great Bend.........  Great Bend Muni....       1/8613      7/20/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A.
2-Dec-21.................  NM           Raton..............  Raton Muni/Crews          1/9043       9/2/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-C.
                                                              Fld.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9965      7/29/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 9L, Amdt 5B.
                                                              Exec.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9967      7/29/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 12, Amdt 2B.
                                                              Exec.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9968      7/29/21  ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 1D.
                                                              Exec.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9976      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L, Orig-B.
                                                              Exec.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9983      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B.
                                                              Exec.
2-Dec-21.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami-Opa Locka           1/9984      7/29/21  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Orig-C.
                                                              Exec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-23497 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38855-38859]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1011; Product Identifier 2018-NM-131-AD; Amendment
39-19691; AD 2019-14-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore/aft
movements of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. This AD requires
an identification of the part number, and if applicable the serial
number, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-
condition actions. This AD also requires a one-time detailed inspection
and repetitive checks of the horizontal movement system of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-condition
actions. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the
repetitive checks of the horizontal movement system for certain
airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 12, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 12,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1011.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1011; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is 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: Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3569; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018 (83 FR 66172).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore/aft movements of
the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The NPRM proposed to require
an identification of the part number, and if applicable the serial
number, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-
condition actions. The NPRM also proposed to require a one-time
detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the horizontal movement
system of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-
condition actions. The NPRM also proposed to provide an optional
terminating action for the repetitive checks of the horizontal movement
system for certain airplanes.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), supported the
intent of the NPRM. FedEx had no objection to the NRPM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified
in the proposed AD.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter. Paragraph (c) of the proposed
AD has been redesignated as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and paragraph
(c)(2) has been added to this AD to state that installation of STC
ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Requests To Include Records Review

    ABX AIR, American Airlines, and Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested
that the proposed AD include a provision to allow operators to do a
records review to determine which airplanes have the affected seat part
numbers installed. The commenters stated that not all of their Model
767 airplane fleets have the affected Captain's and First Officer's
seats installed. Delta asserted that the affected seats are rotable
parts that could later be installed on airplanes that were initially
delivered with acceptable seats, thereby subjecting those airplanes to
the identified unsafe condition. Delta pointed out that the affected
seats are trackable and maintenance records and configuration control
mechanisms can be used to ensure the affected seats are addressed. The
commenters also noted that adding a records review would remove the
undue burden on operators (i.e., need to create work instructions/task
cards and added maintenance down time for inspecting airplanes and
components that are not affected by the identified unsafe condition).
    The FAA agrees with the commenters' requests. A records review will
provide an acceptable means for operators to identify the part numbers
of the Captain's and First Officer's seats installed on an airplane.
Paragraph (g) of this AD has been revised to include the following
statement: ``A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in
lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats can be conclusively determined from
that review.''

Request To Change to Component AD

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the applicability of the
proposed AD be changed from Model 767 airplanes to the Captain's and
First Officer's seats. The commenter also requested that operators use
the Ipeco service information instead of the Boeing service
information. The commenter noted that it is aware there will be other
proposed ADs on other airplane models that would address the same
unsafe condition identified in the proposed AD. The commenter noted
that the affected Captain's and First Officer's seats are
interchangeable across several airplane models and mandating ADs
against those airplane models could result in a specific seat being
installed on a Model 747 airplane with records identifying compliance
with an AD that includes Model 767 airplanes in the applicability. The
commenter stated that this could lead to confusion and questions
regarding compliance when there is no effective difference between the
two ADs.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that this AD be
changed to a component AD. The FAA does not agree with the commenter's
request. A component AD would require any operator with an Ipeco seat
installed on an airplane in its fleet to inspect all of the airplanes
in its fleet to determine if an affected seat part number is installed.
By limiting the applicability of this AD to the airplane model on which
the affected Ipeco part numbers are known to be installed, the burden
is reduced on operators. We acknowledge that the affected seats may be
installed on other airplane models, such as the Model 747, 757, and
777. The FAA is considering other rulemaking to address the unsafe
condition on those models. This AD has not been changed in regard to
this issue.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA has also determined that these changes will not increase
the

economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Additional Change to This Final Rule

    The proposed AD referred to ``uncommanded movement'' in the
description of the unsafe condition. This final rule clarifies the type
of movement by specifying ``uncommanded fore/aft movement'' in the
SUMMARY and Discussion sections, and paragraph (e), of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-
0539, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0539, Revision
1''). The service information describes procedures for identification
of the part number, and, if applicable, the serial number of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-condition
actions. The on-condition actions include an inspection of each seat's
fore/aft and vertical manual control levers for looseness, installation
of serviceable seats, and a seat functional test after any cable
adjustment.
    The FAA also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
767-25-0549, Revision 1, dated August 10, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0549,
Revision 1''). The service information describes procedures for a one-
time detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the horizontal
movement system of the Captain's and First Officer's seats for findings
(e.g., evidence of cracks, scores, corrosion, dents, deformation or
visible wear); and incorrectly assembled components (e.g., microswitch
assemblies, actuators, and limit switches), and applicable on-condition
actions. The on-condition actions include overhaul of the horizontal
movement system, clearing the seat tracks of foreign object debris
(FOD), replacement of the horizontal actuator, and replacement of the
horizontal movement system. The service information also describes
procedures for an optional terminating action for the repetitive checks
by installing a serviceable Captain's or First Officer's seat.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 90 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification, seat...........  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0  $85 per seat......  $7,650 per seat.
                                  hour = $85 per seat.
Detailed inspection, horizontal  1 work-hour x $85 per                 0  $85 per seat......  $7,650 per seat.
 movement system.                 hour = $85, per seat.
Checks, horizontal movement      2 work-hour x $85 per                 0  $170 per seat, per  $15,130 per seat,
 system.                          hour = $170 per seat,                    check cycle.        per check cycle.
                                  per check cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment, control lever cable....  1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $0....................  $85 per seat.
                                      = $85, per seat.
Overhaul or replacement, horizontal  Up to 15 work-hours x $85    Up to $6,400 per seat.  Up to $7,675 per seat.
 movement system.                     per hour = $1,275, per
                                      seat.
Inspection of each seat's fore/aft   1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $0....................  $85 per seat.
 and vertical manual control levers.  = $85, per seat.
Installation of serviceable seats..  1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $0....................  $85 per seat.
                                      = $85, per seat.
Clearing FOD.......................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $0....................  $85 per seat.
                                      = $85, per seat.
Replacement of the horizontal        1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $205..................  $290, per actuator.
 actuator.                            = $85, per actuator.
Functional test, adjusted control    1 work-hour x $85 per hour   $0....................  $85, per seat.
 lever cable.                         = $85, per seat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimated cost for tooling to align an affected seat for adjustment of the control lever cable is up to
  $46,064.

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the optional terminating action
for the on-condition repetitive checks 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.
    The FAA is 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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category

airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System
Oversight Division.

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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-14-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19691; Docket No. FAA-
2018-1011; Product Identifier 2018-NM-131-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 12, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -
300, -300F, and
    -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore/aft
movements of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address uncommanded fore/aft movement of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats. An uncommanded fore/aft seat
movement during a critical part of a flight, such as take-off or
landing, could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended
flight control input, which could result in the loss of the ability
to control the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Seat Identification and On-Condition Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection to determine the part number, and serial number as
applicable, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and do all
applicable on-condition actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-25-0539, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018. A review of
airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the part number and serial number of the Captain's and
First Officer's seats can be conclusively determined from that
review.

(h) Detailed Inspection and Repetitive Checks of Horizontal Movement
System and On-Condition Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
dated August 10, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1''), do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB
767-25-0549, Revision 1.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this AD: Where BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1, uses the phrase ``the
original issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(j) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Checks

    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 and 4 airplanes identified in
BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1: Installation of a serviceable
Captain's seat, as specified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
terminates the repetitive checks of the Captain's seat as required
by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane only.
    (2) For Group 1, Configuration 3 and 4 airplanes identified in
BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1: Installation of a serviceable First
Officer's seat, as specified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
terminates the repetitive checks of the First Officer's seat as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0539,
Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0549,
Revision 1, dated August 10, 2018.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (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 Des Moines, Washington, on July 23, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-16813 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P