Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58111

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. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation.

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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2004–19203; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–109–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this AD 

action by November 15, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model 757–200 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–25–

0255, dated December 11, 2003. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by a 

certification review that revealed a frequency 

converter failure mode not identified in the 

original system design. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent a short circuit between the 

frequency converter output and the 

distribution circuit breakers, which could 

result in overheating and failure of adjacent 

wiring and consequent degraded operation of 

airplane systems. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Modification 

(f) For all airplanes: Within 18 months after 

the effective date of this AD: Modify the 

frequency converters located in the closet 

assembly in the passenger compartment by 

doing all the applicable actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–

25–0255, dated December 11, 2003. 

Prior or Concurrent Modification 

(g) For Group 1 airplanes listed in Boeing 

Service Bulletin 757–24–0093, dated August 

14, 2003: Before or concurrent with 

accomplishment of paragraph (f) of this AD, 

Modify the in-flight entertainment system by 

doing all the applicable actions in 

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 

757–24–0093, dated August 14, 2003. 

Part Installation 

(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install a frequency converter 

having part number 1–002–0102–0730 on 

any airplane unless it has been modified as 

required by paragraph (f) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 21, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21818 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–257–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that proposed a new airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to certain 

Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 

series airplanes. That action would have 

required replacement of the lightweight 

tailpipes of the auxiliary power units 

(APU). Since the issuance of the NPRM, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) has received additional 

information, based on which we have 

determined that the tailpipes are very 

light, and that the chances of any injury 

to persons or damage to equipment from 

the part being ejected from the APU 

exhaust duct are minimal. Also, we 

have determined that 100 percent of the 

U.S. operators have done the proposed 

replacement. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Lium, Aerospace Engineer; International 

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1112; 

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

add a new airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain Airbus Model 

A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, 

was published in the Federal Register

as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) on June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34096). 

The proposed rule would have required 

replacement of the lightweight tailpipes 

of the APU. That action was prompted 

by reports that stress cracking stemming 

from design issues had been discovered 

in the inner liners of the lightweight 

tailpipes of certain APUs. The proposed 

actions were intended to prevent stress 

cracking of the tailpipe inner liner from 

possibly causing the tailpipe to become 

separated from the APU during 

operation, which could have posed a 

hazard to persons on the ground. 

Actions that Occurred Since the NPRM 

Was Issued 

Since the issuance of that NPRM, we 

have received additional information. 

The failed part, a sheet metal ring that 

forms a portion of the tailpipe, weighs 

less than one pound. If the part does fail 

and come off, it will blow out the back 

and not interfere with continued APU or 

airplane operation. We have determined 

that the probability of any injury to 

persons or damage to equipment from 

the part being ejected from the APU 

exhaust duct is minimal. Also, we have 

determined that 100 percent of the U.S. 

operators have done the proposed 

replacement. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, the FAA 

has determined that the identified 

unsafe condition does not exist on the 

affected airplanes. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule is hereby withdrawn. 

Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes 

only such action, and does not preclude 

the agency from issuing another action 

in the future, nor does it commit the 

agency to any course of action in the 

future. 

Regulatory Impact 

Since this action only withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is 

neither a proposed nor a final rule and 

therefore is not covered under Executive 

Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility 

58112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1Promoting Wholesale Competition Through 

Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission 

Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded 

Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 

Order No. 888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31.036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 888–A, 62 FR 12,274 (March 14, 1977), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 888–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 888–C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in 

relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy 

Study Group, et al. v. 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 

aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 

(2002).

2Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 

2000, 65 FR 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & 

Regs., ¶ 31,089 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 

2000–A, 65 FR 12,088 (March 8, 2000), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000), affirmed sub nom. Public 

Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 

Washington, et al. v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 

2001).

3 ISOs and RTOs are, in many respects, similar, 

with one major difference being that RTOs must 

meet more stringent independence and scope and 

configuration standards.

4RTO West (now Grid West), WestConnect, 

GridFlorida, GridSouth, and SeTrans.

Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Docket 2002–NM–257–AD, 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34096), is 

withdrawn.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 20, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21817 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 35, 41, 101, 141 

[Docket No. RM04–12–000] 

Financial Reporting and Cost 

Accounting, Oversight and Recovery 

Practices for Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent 

System Operators 

September 16, 2004.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

inviting comments on its accounting 

and financial reporting requirements for 

and oversight of regional transmission 

organization (RTO) and independent 

system operator (ISO) costs.

DATES: Comments on this NOI are due 

on November 4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed 

electronically via the eFiling link on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov. Commentors unable to 

file comments electronically must send 

an original and 14 copies of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. Refer to the Procedure for 

Comments section of the preamble for 

additional information on how to file 

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hegerle (Technical Information), 

Office of Markets, Tariffs & Rates—

Central, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8287, Mark.Hegerle@ferc.gov.

Mark Klose (Accounting Information), 

Office of Executive Director—

Regulatory Accounting Policy 

Division, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8283, Mark.Klose@ferc.gov. 

Lodie White (Legal Information), Office 

of General Counsel—Markets, Tariffs 

& Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6193, Lodie.White@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Inquiry 

Introduction 

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) is issuing 

this Notice of Inquiry to seek comments 

on its accounting and financial 

reporting requirements for and oversight 

of regional transmission organization 

(RTO) and independent system operator 

(ISO) costs. Specifically, the 

Commission is undertaking a review of:

(a) Whether changes are needed to the 

Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for 

Public Utilities and Licensees Subject to the 

Provisions of the Federal Power Act (USofA), 

(18 CFR part 101), to better account and 

report RTO and ISO financial information to 

the Commission, in order to provide greater 

transparency of transactions and business 

functions affecting these entities and their 

member transmission-owning public utilities; 

(b) Whether RTOs and ISOs have 

appropriate incentives to be cost efficient; 

and 

(c) Whether the Commission’s rate review 

methods for RTOs and ISOs are sufficient.

Background 

2. In Order No. 888,1 the Commission 

encouraged but did not require the 

formation of ISOs—independent entities 

that administer regional transmission 

tariffs and control the transmission 

facilities of their member transmissionowning utilities. Rather, Order No. 888 

delineated eleven principles defining 

the operations and structure of a 

properly functioning ISO. Likewise, in 

Order No. 2000,2 the Commission 

encouraged utilities to voluntarily join 

RTOs, and detailed certain functions an 

RTO must perform and characteristics 

that an RTO should have.3 However, in 

neither rule did the Commission 

promulgate specific accounting rules or 

rate review principles for the new 

entities. The Commission instead chose 

to rely on existing rules and policies 

applicable to traditional public utilities, 

i.e., principally investor-owned utilities 

(IOUs).

3. Over the past seven years, 

beginning in 1997, the Commission 

issued a series of orders approving 

several ISOs and RTOs which have 

since commenced operations. PJM 

Interconnection, LLC (PJM), ISO New 

England, Inc. (ISO–NE), and Midwest 

Independent Transmission System 

Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) were first 

approved (or conditionally approved) as 

ISOs and later as RTOs; New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

(NYISO) and California Independent 

System Operator, Inc. (CAISO) were 

approved as ISOs. The Commission has 

also conditionally approved Southwest 

Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), which currently 

operates a regional transmission tariff, 

as an RTO. The Commission also 

conditionally approved a number of 

other RTOs and ISOs which have not 

commenced operations.4

4. Each of these entities developed 

independent of one another, using 

somewhat different business models, 

software, accounting methods, and rate 

designs to accomplish the same ultimate 

goal of providing open-access (nondiscriminatory) regional transmission 

service. In addition, some of these 

entities administer centrally-dispatched, 

competitive energy markets. These 

differences have made comparisons 

between entities difficult and raised 

questions concerning the Commission’s 

current accounting and financial 

reporting rules and our current rate 

review practices for RTOs and ISOs. 

5. Nevertheless there are similarities 

among RTOs and ISOs as well. Each 

RTO/ISO administers a regional 

transmission tariff and performs system 

monitoring and planning, as well as