Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22503

1Streamlining of Regulations Pertaining to Parts

II and III of the Federal Power Act and the Public

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Order No.

575, 60 FR 4831 (Jan. 25, 1995); III FERC Stats. &

Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,014 (1995).

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of a fuel hose assembly

on the auxiliary power unit (APU), which

could result in a malfunction of the APU, a

potential fuel fire in the fuselage rear bay,

and reduced structural integrity of the

surrounding structure, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform inspections to detect

discrepancies of the fuel feed hose

assemblies on the APU; an inspection to

assure proper positioning of the air leak

detection system; and an inspection of the

bleed air system for signs of leakage; in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 49–44, dated January 20,

1995.

(1) If no discrepancy is found: Thereafter,

following the last flight of each day, perform

an inspection to detect discoloration of the

fuel hose assembly (outlet from the fuel

pump box) on the APU, in accordance with

paragraph 2.B.(2) and 2.C. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, correct the discrepancy in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 49–44,

dated January 20, 1995. This incorporation

by reference was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from Raytheon Corporate Jets,

Inc., Customer Support Department, Adams

Field, P.O. Box 3356, Little Rock, Arkansas

72203. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

May 23, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 27,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10835 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 2, 34, 35, 41, 131, 292,

294, 382, and 385

[Docket No. RM92–12–001; Order No. 575–

A]

Streamlining of Regulations Pertaining

to Parts II and III of the Federal Power

Act and the Public Utility Regulatory

Policies Act of 1978

Issued May 2, 1995.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; Order Granting and

Dismissing Requests for Clarification

and Dismissing Requests for Rehearing.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

granting and dismissing certain requests

for clarification of its final rule in this

proceeding and dismissing requests for

rehearing. The requests for clarification

and for rehearing relate to the

Commission’s description of petroleum

coke and to codification of Commission

precedent regarding the power

production capacity of qualifying

facilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This order is effective

May 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andre Goodson, Office of the General

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,

NE., Washington, DC 20426,

Telephone: (202) 208–2167.

Joseph C. Lynch, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Office of the

General Counsel, 825 North Capitol

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

Telephone: (202) 208–2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in Room 3401, at 941 North Capitol

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To

access CIPS, set your communications

software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600,

7200, 4800, 2400, 1200 or 300bps, full

duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop

bit. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS for 60 days from

the date of issuance in ASCII and

WordPerfect 5.1 format. After 60 days

the document will be archived, but still

accessible. The complete text on

diskette in WordPerfect format may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation, also located in Room 3104,

941 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426.

Order Granting and Dismissing

Requests for Clarification and

Dismissing Requests for Rehearing

On January 13, 1995, the Commission

issued a Final Rule in this proceeding.1

The Final Rule revised and clarified the

Commission’s policies regarding: rate

filings by public utilities under the

Federal Power Act (FPA); issuances of

securities and assumptions of liabilities

by public utilities, licensees and others;

and procedural and technical rules

governing qualifying facilities (QFs).

On February 13, 1995: (a) The

American Petroleum Institute

(American Petroleum) filed a petition

for clarification or, in the alternative, a

request for rehearing; (b) Texaco

Cogeneration Development (Texaco

Cogen) filed a petition for clarification,

or, in the alternative, a request for

rehearing; and (c) Granite State

Hydropower Association (Granite State)

filed a petition for clarification, or, in

the alternative, a request for rehearing.
22504 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2 18 CFR 292.204(b).

3 60 FR at 4850; III FERC Stats & Regs. at 31,292.

4 Id. (emphasis added).

5See American Petroleum Petition for

Clarification/Request for Rehearing at 2–9; Texaco

Cogen Petition for Clarification/Request for

Rehearing at 1–3.

6Streamlining of Regulations Pertaining to Parts

II and III of the Federal Power Act and the Public

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 57 FR 55176

(Nov. 24, 1992); IV FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed

Regulations ¶ 32,489 (1992).

7The NOPR listed petroleum coke among the

energy sources that the Commission proposed to

treat as waste. The NOPR described petroleum coke

as follows:

Petroleum coke ordinarily has less than 1 percent

ash, has a high fixed carbon content (about 90

percent), is very low in volatile matter (6 percent

to 11 percent) and usually contains more than 4.5

percent sulfur. For these reasons it is not a very

desirable boiler fuel.

57 FR at 55187 n.69; IV FERC Stats. & Regs. at

32,655 n.69.

8 32 FERC ¶ 61,101 (1985) (Power Developers).

9 55 FERC ¶ 61,136 (1991) (Turners Falls).

10 60 FR at 4844; III FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,282.

The two proceedings are: (a) Carolina Power & Light

Company. v. Stone Container Corp., Docket Nos.

EL94–62–000 and QF85–102–005 (Stone

Container); and (b) Connecticut Valley Light &

Power Company. v. Wheelabrator Claremont

Company, Docket Nos. EL94–10–000 and QF86–

177–001 (Wheelabrator).

11 Granite State Request for Clarification or

Rehearing at 2.

American Petroleum and Texaco Cogen

American Petroleum and Texaco

Cogen focus on the same issue. Section

292.204(b) requires that waste must

comprise at least 75 percent of the fuel

of a waste-fueled qualifying small power

production facility.2 The Final Rule

recognized petroleum coke as waste for

the purposes of § 292.204(b); 3 it

described petroleum coke as:

A by-product of the oil refining process

that is very low in volatile matter, usually

high in sulfur content, and an

environmentally hazardous waste.4

American Petroleum and Texaco

Cogen object to the Commission’s

characterization of petroleum coke as

‘‘an environmentally hazardous

waste.’’ 5 They argue that: (a) The Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this

proceeding 6 gave no notice that the

Commission would regard petroleum

coke as an environmentally hazardous

waste; 7 (b) there is no evidence in the

record to support the conclusion that

petroleum coke is an environmentally

hazardous waste; and that, in any event,

(c) the Commission is without authority

to make the determination that

petroleum coke is an environmentally

hazardous waste.

American Petroleum and Texaco

Cogen ask that the Commission remove

from its characterization of petroleum

coke in the preamble the words ‘‘and an

environmentally hazardous waste.’’

Alternatively, Texaco Cogen asks the

Commission to state that the language

that petroleum coke is an

environmentally hazardous waste is

without substantive effect.

Granite State

In the NOPR, the Commission

proposed to add a new § 292.202(s),

which would codify Commission

precedent regarding the power

production capacity of a QF. The

Commission proposed to determine a

QF’s maximum net sendout based on

the safe and reliable operation of the

facility. The Commission also proposed

to measure a QF’s power production

capacity at the point of delivery to the

transmission system of the

interconnected utility. This proposed

rule would have codified the

Commission’s decisions in Power

Developers, Inc.8 and Turners Falls

Limited Partnership.9 In its comments,

Granite State opposed the codification

of those decisions, at least as the

codification might apply to

hydroelectric small power production

facilities that are in operation when

such codification might take effect.

In the Final Rule, the Commission

decided not to add the proposed new

§ 292.202(s) and, therefore, not to codify

the Commission’s decisions in Power

Developers and Turners Falls. The

Commission noted that two pending

proceedings raise issues concerning the

policy set forth in Turners Falls, that the

Commission is reviewing those issues

and will address them in those

proceedings, that the Commission is not

prepared at this time to issue a final rule

regarding the policy set forth in Turners

Falls and that the Commission may in

the future codify its policy after it has

more experience on the issue.10

Granite State asks the Commission to

clarify that it will codify the decisions

in Power Developers and Turners Falls

only after it has conducted a properly

noticed rulemaking proceeding and to

state that it was not the Commission’s

intent in the Final Rule to apply those

decisions to other hydroelectric small

power production facilities.11 Should

the Commission not grant the requested

clarification, Granite State seeks

rehearing on the grounds that: (1) Part

292 of the Commission’s regulations, 18

CFR Part 292, allows small power

producers to sell any power—net or

gross—produced by their facilities as

qualifying facilities and (2) the

Commission may only change the Part

292 regulations prospectively and only

after the Commission has conducted a

properly noticed rulemaking

proceeding.

Discussion

American Petroleum and Texaco Cogen

We agree with American Petroleum

and Texaco Cogen that the record is

devoid of support for the statement that

petroleum coke is an environmentally

hazardous waste. In any event, reference

to the environmental effects of

petroleum coke is unnecessary to our

determination to include petroleum

coke as a waste for the purposes of

§ 292.204(b). We will, therefore, grant

American Petroleum’s and Texaco

Cogen’s request for clarification and will

dismiss, as moot, their alternative

requests for rehearing.

Granite State

With respect to Granite State’s

opposition to codification and

application of the policy in the Power

Developers and Turners Falls decisions,

we emphasize, as we stated in the

January 13, 1995 Final Rule, that we are

reviewing the issue in the pending

Stone Container and Wheelabrator

proceedings and would not expect to

codify any precedent regarding QF

power production capacity without

obtaining more experience with this

issue. Since the Commission decided

not to codify its precedent concerning

QF power production capacity in the

January 13, 1995 Final Rule, Granite

State’s challenge is premature.

Granite State’s request that we not

codify in our regulations the policy set

forth in Power Developers and Turners

Falls without a properly noticed

rulemaking proceeding is also

premature. Accordingly, we will

dismiss Granite State’s requests for

clarification and rehearing.

The Commission Orders

(A) American Petroleum’s and Texaco

Cogen’s petitions for clarification are

hereby granted; the first sentence in

footnote 95 of the preamble to the Final

Rule, III FERC Stats. & Regs.,

Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,014 at p.

31,292 n.95 (60 FR at 4850 n. 95), is

hereby amended to read, ‘‘Petroleum

coke is a by-product of the oil refining

process that is very low in volatile

matter and usually high in sulfur

content.’’

(B) American Petroleum’s and Texaco

Cogen’s alternative requests for

rehearing are hereby dismissed.

(C) Granite State’s requests for

clarification and rehearing are hereby

dismissed as discussed in the body of

this order.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22505

By the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11213 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 706

Certifications and Exemptions Under

the International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972;

Amendment

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

is amending its certifications and

exemptions under the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate

General (Admiralty) of the Navy, acting

pursuant to authority delegated from the

Secretary of the Navy: has determined

that USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

(CVN 69) is a vessel of the Navy which,

due to its special construction and

purpose, cannot comply fully with

certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS

without interfering with its special

functions as a naval aircraft carrier; and

has directed that certain naval ships or

classes of ships be removed from the

Tables in the existing Part 706. The

intended effect of this rule is to warn

mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS

apply.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commander K.P. McMahon, JAGC, U.S.

Navy, Admiralty Counsel, Office of the

Judge Advocate General, Navy

Department, 200 Stovall Street,

Alexandria, VA 22332–2400, Telephone

number: (703) 325–9744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C.

1605, the Department of the Navy

amends 32 CFR Part 706. The Secretary

of the Navy previously certified that

USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN

69) is a vessel of the Navy which, due

to its special construction and purpose,

cannot fully with 72 COLREGS. This

amendment provides notice that the

Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate

General (Admiralty) of the Navy, under

authority delegated by the Secretary of

the Navy, has amended that certification

to reflect that certain navigation lights

on USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

(CVN 69), previously certified as not in

compliance with 72 COLREGS, now

comply with the applicable 72

COLREGS requirements, to wit: the ship

now has a single forward anchor light,

as required by Rule 30(a)(i).

Notice is also provided that the

Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate

General (Admiralty) of the Navy has

determined that certain vessels and

classes of vessels listed in the existing

tables of 32 CFR Part 706 may be

deleted from those tables because

certification of those vessels or classes

of vessels is no longer required.

Moreover, it has been determined, in

accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and

701, that publication of this amendment

for public comment prior to adoption is

impracticable, unnecessary, and

contrary to public interest since it is

based on technical findings that the

placement of lights on this vessel in a

manner differently from that prescribed

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s

ability to perform its military functions.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

Marine safety, Navigation (Water),

and Vessels.

Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 706 is

amended as follows:

PART 706—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 706

continues to read:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.

§ 706.2 [Amended]

2. Table Two of § 706.2 is amended by

revising the entry for the following

vessel:

TABLE TWO

Vessel No.

Masthead

lights, distance to

stbd of keel

in meters;

Rule 21(a)

Forward anchor light,

distance

below flight

dk in meters; § 2(K),

Annex I

Forward

anchor

light,

number

of; rule

30(a)(i)

AFT anchor

light, distance below

flight dk in

meters; rule

21(e), rule

30(a)(ii)

AFT anchor light,

number

of; rule

30(a)(ii)

Side

lights,

distance

below

flight dk

in meters;

§ 2(g),

annex I

Side lights,

distance forward of forward masthead light in

meters;

§ 3(b),

annex I

Side lights,

distance inboard of

ship’s sides

in meters;

§ 3(b),

annex I

* * * * * * *

USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.CVN–69 30 ................... 1 9.3 2 0.7 ................... ...................

* * * * * * *

1. Table One of 32 CFR 706.2 is

amended by removing the following

ships:

USS LEAHY ............................... CG–16

USS CHARLES F. ADAMS ....... DDG–2

USS JOHN KING ....................... DDG–3

USS LAWRENCE ....................... DDG–4

USS CLAUDE V. RICKETTS .... DDG–5

USS BARNEY ............................ DDG–6

USS LYNDE MC CORMICK ..... DDG–8

USS TOWERS ............................ DDG–9

USS SAMPSON ......................... DDG–10

USS SELLERS ............................ DDG–11

USS ROBINSON ........................ DDG–12

USS HOEL ................................. DDG–13

USS BUCHANAN ...................... DDG–14

USS BERKELEY ........................ DDG–15

USS JOSEPH STRAUSS ............ DDG–16

USS CONYNGHAM .................. DDG–17

USS SEMMES ............................ DDG–18

USS TATTNALL ....................... DDG–19

USS GOLDSBOROUGH ............ DDG–20

USS COCHRANE ....................... DDG–21

USS BENJAMIN STODDERT .... DDG–22

USS RICHARD E. BYRD ........... DDG–23

USS WADDELL ......................... DDG–24

USS BRONSTEIN ...................... FF–1037

USS MC CLOY .......................... FF–1038

USS IWO JIMA .......................... LPH–2

USS OKINAWA ......................... LPH–3

USS CONSTANT ....................... MSO–427

USS ENGAGE ............................ MSO–433

USS ENHANCE ......................... MSO–437

USS ESTEEM ............................. MSO–438

USS EXCEL ................................ MSO–439

USS EXPLOIT ............................ MSO–440

USS EXULTANT ....................... MSO–441

USS FEARLESS ......................... MSO–442

USS FORTIFY ........................... MSO–446

USS ILLUSIVE ........................... MSO–448

USS IMPERVIOUS .................... MSO–449

USS INFLICT ............................. MSO–456

USS PLUCK ............................... MSO–464

USS LEADER ............................. MSO–490