Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24825 

these standards can also be found in 

section 1.4 of the framework document. 

In addition, Section 136(c)(4)(A) of 

EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to mandate 

that DOE set standards for the following 

additional categories of commercial 

refrigeration equipment: Ice-cream 

freezers; self-contained commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers without doors; and remote 

condensing commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)). DOE 

undertook a rulemaking process 

beginning in April 2006, when it 

published a Rulemaking Framework for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Including Ice-Cream Freezers; SelfContained Commercial Refrigerators, 

Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 

without doors; and Remote Condensing 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers. The final rule was 

published on January 9, 2009. (74 FR 

1091). 

The EPACT 2005 amendments to 

EPCA also require DOE to conduct two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend the standards for 

commercial refrigeration, both those 

prescribed by EPACT 2005 and those 

prescribed by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(5)(A)–(B)). In the first cycle, the 

subject of this rulemaking, DOE must 

publish a final rule establishing such 

amended standards by January 1, 2013 

if DOE determines to amend the 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)(A)). 

Any amended standards adopted by 

DOE would apply to products 

manufactured three years or more after 

the date of publication, except that if 

DOE decides that a three-year period is 

inadequate, it shall provide a longer 

period not to exceed five years. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(c)(5)(C)). This framework 

document is being published as a first 

step in meeting these statutory 

requirements. 

DOE also considered standby and off 

mode for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and does not currently 

believe that these modes of operation 

are applicable to this equipment. As 

described in more detail in the 

framework document, commercial 

refrigeration equipment generally 

operates continuously. DOE plans, 

however, to examine the issue and 

address standby and off mode energy 

use in the analyses conducted over the 

course of the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

To initiate this rulemaking cycle for 

the consideration of amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, DOE has 

prepared a framework document to 

explain the relevant issues, analyses, 

and processes it anticipates using to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards, and, if so, for the 

development of such amended 

standards. The focus of the public 

meeting noted above will be to discuss 

the analyses presented and issues 

identified in the framework document. 

At the public meeting, DOE will make 

a number of presentations, invite 

discussion on the rulemaking process as 

it applies to commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and solicit comments, data, 

and information from participants and 

other interested parties. 

DOE is planning to conduct in-depth 

technical analyses in the following 

areas: (1) Engineering; (2) energy-use 

characterization; (3) product price; (4) 

life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period 

(PBP); (5) national impacts analysis 

(NIA); (6) manufacturer impact analysis; 

(7) utility impact analysis; (8) 

employment impact analysis; (9) 

environmental assessment; and (10) 

regulatory impact analysis. DOE will 

also conduct several other analyses that 

support those previously listed, 

including the market and technology 

assessment, the screening analysis 

(which contributes to the engineering 

analysis), and the shipments analysis 

(which contributes to the national 

impact analysis). 

DOE encourages those who wish to 

participate in the public meeting to 

obtain the framework document and to 

be prepared to discuss its contents. A 

copy of the draft framework document 

is available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

refrigeration_equipment.html. 

Public meeting participants need not 

limit their comments to the issues 

identified in the framework document. 

DOE is also interested in comments on 

other relevant issues that participants 

believe would affect energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment, applicable test procedures, 

or the preliminary determination on the 

scope of coverage. DOE invites all 

interested parties, whether or not they 

participate in the public meeting, to 

submit in writing by June 7, 2010, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in the framework document 

and on other matters relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of amended standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, facilitated, conference 

style. There shall be no discussion of 

proprietary information, costs or prices, 

market shares, or other commercial 

matters regulated by U.S. antitrust laws. 

A court reporter will record the 

proceedings of the public meeting, after 

which a transcript will be available for 

purchase from the court reporter and 

placed on the DOE Web site at: http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

refrigeration_equipment.html. 

After the public meeting and the close 

of the comment period on the 

framework document, DOE will begin 

collecting data, conducting the analyses 

as discussed in the framework 

document and at the public meeting, 

and reviewing the public comments it 

receives. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for determining whether to amend 

energy conservation standards, and if 

so, in setting those amended standards. 

DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of the 

public during the comment period in 

each stage of the rulemaking process. 

Beginning with the framework 

document, and during each subsequent 

public meeting and comment period, 

interactions with and between members 

of the public provide a balanced 

discussion of the issues to assist DOE in 

the standards rulemaking process. 

Accordingly, anyone who wishes to 

participate in the public meeting, 

receive meeting materials, or be added 

to the DOE mailing list to receive future 

notices and information about this 

rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or via email at Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10655 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–0037; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NE–41–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (RRD) 

Models Tay 650–15 and Tay 651–54 

Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Tay 650–15 turbofan engines. That AD 

currently requires initial and repetitive 

inspections of the low-pressure (LP) 

turbine discs stage 2 and stage 3 for 

corrosion, on certain Tay 650–15 serial 

number engines. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: Strip results from some of 

the engines listed in the applicability 

section of this AD revealed excessively 

corroded low-pressure turbine disks 

stage 2 and stage 3. The corrosion is 

considered to be caused by the 

environment in which these engines are 

operated. Following a life assessment 

based on the strip findings it is 

concluded that inspections for corrosion 

attack are required. The action specified 

by this European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) AD 2008–0122 was 

intended to avoid a failure of a lowpressure turbine disk stage 2 or stage 3 

due to potential corrosion problems 

which could result in uncontained 

engine failure and damage to the 

airplane. It has been later realized that 

the same unsafe condition could 

potentially occur on more serial 

numbers for the Tay 650–15 engines and 

on the Tay 651–54 engines. This AD, 

superseding EASA AD 2008–0122, 

retaining its requirements, is therefore 

issued to expand the Applicability in 

adding further engine serial numbers for 

the Tay 650–15 engines and in adding 

the Tay 651–54 engines. 

We are proposing this AD to detect 

corrosion that could cause the stage 2 or 

stage 3 disk of the LP turbine to fail and 

result in an uncontained failure of the 

engine. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd 

& Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlwitz, 

15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; 

phone: 011 49 (0) 33–7086–1883; fax: 

011 49 (0) 33–7086–3276, for the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (phone: (800) 647–5527) is the 

same as the Mail address provided in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara 

Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

e-mail: tara.chaidez@faa.gov; phone: 

(781) 238–7773; fax: (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2007–0037; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NE–41–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of the Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including, if provided, the name of the 

individual who sent the comment (or 

signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

Discussion 

On October 8, 2009, the FAA issued 

AD 2009–22–01 (Amendment 39–16052 

(74 FR 55121, October 27, 2009), which 

superseded AD 2008–10–14 

(Amendment 39–15521, 73 FR 29405, 

May 21, 2008). AD 2009–22–01 requires 

initial and repetitive inspections of the 

LP turbine discs stage 2 and stage 3 for 

corrosion on 79 engines by serial 

number. That AD was the result of 

MCAI issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. That condition, if not 

corrected, could result in the stage 2 or 

stage 3 disk of the LP turbine to fail and 

result in an uncontained failure of the 

engine. 

Since AD 2009–22–01 was issued, 

RRD identified 14 additional Tay 650– 

15 engines by serial number that require 

the same inspections. RRD also 

expanded the applicability to all Tay 

651–54 engines. EASA, which is the 

Technical Agent for the Member States 

of the European Community, has issued 

EASA AD 2010–0060R1, dated April 14, 

2010. That MCAI extends the 

applicability to include the 14 

additional Tay 650–15 engine serial 

numbers and Tay 651–54 engines for 

inspections. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Rolls-Royce Deutschland has issued 

Alert Service Bulletin No. TAY–72– 

A1524, Revision 3, dated March 24, 

2010. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

These products have been approved 

by the United Kingdom (UK), and are 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with the UK, they have 

notified us of the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI ADs, and service 

information referenced above. We are 

proposing this AD because we evaluated 

all pertinent information and 

determined an unsafe condition exists 

and is likely to exist or develop on other 

products of the same type design. This 

proposed AD would require initial and 

repetitive eddy current inspections of 

HP turbine discs. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about three Tay 651–54 engines 

installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about three work-hours per engine to 

comply with this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Required parts would cost about 

$40,000 per engine. Based on these 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24827 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$120,765. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

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 AD: 

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) 

(formerly Rolls-Royce plc, Derby, 

England): Docket No. FAA–2007–0037; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NE–41–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by June 21, 

2010. 

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2009–22–01, 

Amendment 39–16052. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to: 

(1) RRD model Tay 650–15 turbofan 

engines that have a serial number listed in 

Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3 of this AD; 

(2) All model Tay 651–54 turbofan engines; 

and 

(3) Engines with a low-pressure (LP) 

turbine module M05300AA installed. 

These engines are installed on, but not 

limited to, Fokker F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 

airplanes, Boeing 727 airplanes modified in 

accordance with Supplemental Type 

Certificate No. SA8472SW, and Gulfstream 

G–IV airplanes. 

TABLE 1—AFFECTED TAY 650–15 ENGINES BY SERIAL NUMBER (CARRIED

FORWARD FROM AD 2008–10–14 

AND AD 2009–22–01) 

Engine serial number 

17251 17561 

17255 17562 

17256 17563 

17273 17580 

17275 17581 

17280 17612 

17281 17618 

17282 17635 

17300 17637 

17301 17645 

17327 17661 

17332 17686 

17365 17699 

17393 17701 

17437 17702 

17443 17736 

17470 17737 

17520 17738 

17521 17739 

17523 17741 

17539 17742 

17542 17808 

17556 

TABLE 2—AFFECTED TAY 650–15 ENGINES BY SERIAL NUMBER (CARRIED

FORWARD FROM AD 2009–22–01) 

Engine serial number 

17249 17522 

17303 17534 

17358 17535 

17370 17536 

17425 17538 

17426 17540 

17433 17541 

17438 17552 

17445 17553 

17446 17585 

17460 17613 

17474 17723 

17478 17724 

17490 17740 

17491 17759 

17517 17760 

17518 17807 

TABLE 3—AFFECTED TAY 650–15 ENGINES BY SERIAL NUMBER (ADDED

NEW IN THIS AD) 

Engine serial number 

17344 17707 

17360 17716 

17376 17718 

17413 17719 

17537 17731 

17694 17756 

17698 17757 

Reason 

(d) Strip results from some of the engines 

listed in the applicability section of this AD 

revealed excessively corroded low-pressure 

turbine disks stage 2 and stage 3. The 

corrosion is considered to be caused by the 

environment in which these engines are 

operated. Following a life assessment based 

on the strip findings it is concluded that 

inspections for corrosion attack are required. 

The action specified by this European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2008– 

0122 was intended to avoid a failure of a lowpressure turbine disk stage 2 or stage 3 due 

to potential corrosion problems which could 

result in uncontained engine failure and 

damage to the airplane. It has been later 

realized that the same unsafe condition could 

potentially occur on more serial numbers for 

the Tay 650–15 engines and on the Tay 651– 

54 engines. This AD, superseding EASA AD 

2008–0122, retaining its requirements, is 

therefore issued to expand the Applicability 

in adding further engine serial numbers for 

the Tay 650–15 engines and in adding the 

Tay 651–54 engines. We are issuing this AD 

to detect corrosion that could cause the stage 

2 or stage 3 disk of the LP turbine to fail and 

result in an uncontained failure of the 

engine. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Prior to accumulating 11,700 flight 

cycles (FC) since new of disk life, and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1FERC Staff, Staff Findings on Capacity 

Reassignment (2010), available at: http:// 

www.ferc.gov (Staff Report). 

2Promoting 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 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036, at 31,696 (1996), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 888–A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 

1997), 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 v. FERC, 

225 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New 

York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 

thereafter at intervals not exceeding 11,700 

FC of disk life, inspect the LP turbine disks 

stage 2 and stage 3 for corrosion using RRD 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. TAY–72– 

A1524, Revision 3, dated March 24, 2010. 

(2) For engines with disk life that already 

exceed 11,700 FC on the effective date of this 

AD, perform the inspection within 90 days 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(3) When, during any of the inspections as 

required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of 

this AD, corrosion is found, replace the 

affected parts. RRD TAY 650 Engine 

Manual—E–TAY–3RR, Tasks 72–52–23–200– 

000 and 72–52–24–200–000, and RRD TAY 

651 Engine Manual—E–TAY–5RR, Tasks 72– 

52–23–200–000 and 72–52–24–200–000, 

contain guidance on performing the 

inspection for corrosion and rejection 

criteria. 

Previous Credit 

(f) Initial inspections done before the 

effective date of this AD on LP turbine disks 

stage 2 and stage 3 listed in Table 1 and 

Table 2 of this AD using RRD ASB No. TAY– 

72–A1524, Revision 1, dated September 1, 

2006, or Revision 2, dated June 13, 2008, 

comply with the initial inspection 

requirements specified in this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to EASA AD 2010–060R1, dated 

April 14, 2010, for related information. 

Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co 

KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlwitz, 15827 

Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 011 

49 (0) 33–7086–1883; fax: 011 49 (0) 33– 

7086–3276, for a copy of the service 

information referenced in this AD. 

(i) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: tara.chaidez@faa.gov; phone: 

(781) 238–7773; fax (781) 238–7199, for more 

information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 29, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10739 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 37 

[Docket No. RM10–22–000] 

Promoting a Competitive Market for 

Capacity Reassignments 

April 29, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Based on the Commission’s 

experience to date and a two-year study, 

released April 15, 2010, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

proposes in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to lift the price cap for all 

transmission customers reassigning 

transmission capacity beyond October 1, 

2010. The reforms proposed in this 

order are intended to facilitate the 

development of a market for capacity 

reassignments as a competitive 

alternative to primary capacity. 

DATES: Comments are due July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Comment Procedures Section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Hyde (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Market Regulation, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8146, 

A. Cory Lankford (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Based on the Commission’s 

experience to date and a two-year study, 

released April 15, 2010,1 the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) proposes in this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to lift the 

price cap for all transmission customers 

reassigning transmission capacity 

beyond October 1, 2010. The reforms 

proposed in this order are intended to 

facilitate the development of a market 

for capacity reassignments as a 

competitive alternative to primary 

capacity. 

I. Background 

2. In Order No. 888, the Commission 

concluded that a transmission 

provider’s pro forma Open Access 

Transmission Tariff (OATT) must 

explicitly permit the voluntary 

reassignment of all or part of a holder’s 

firm point-to-point capacity rights to 

any eligible customer.2 The Commission 

also found that allowing holders of firm 

transmission capacity rights to reassign 

capacity would help parties manage the 

financial risks associated with their 

long-term commitment, reduce the 

market power of transmission providers 

by enabling customers to compete, and 

foster efficient capacity allocation. 

3. With respect to the appropriate rate 

for capacity reassignment, the 

Commission concluded it could not 

permit reassignments at market-based 

rates because it was unable to determine 

that the market for reassigned capacity 

was sufficiently competitive so that 

assignors would not be able to exert 

market power. Instead, the Commission 

capped the rate at the highest of (1) the 

original transmission rate charged to the 

purchaser (assignor), (2) the 

transmission provider’s maximum 

stated firm transmission rate in effect at 

the time of the reassignment, or (3) the 

assignor’s own opportunity costs 

capped at the cost of expansion (price 

cap). The Commission further explained 

that opportunity cost pricing had been 

permitted at ‘‘the higher of embedded 

costs or legitimate and verifiable 

opportunity costs, but not the sum of 

the two (i.e., ‘or’ pricing is permitted; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS