Request for review to a Technical Review Panel and receiving its
opinion * * *'' \128\ The technical review panel member must have the
required technical background, must not have participated in the review
of the exception request, and not have a conflict of interest in the
matter.\129\ The Regional Entity is not bound by the opinion of the
panel, but the panel's evaluation becomes part of the record associated
with the exception request and provided to NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ NERC ROP Petition, Att. 1, Proposed App. 5C to the Rules
of Procedure, section 5.2.4.
    \129\ Id. at App. 5C, section 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. We see value in the Regional Entity receiving the independent
opinion of a qualified technical review panel. NERC, however, does not
explain why the proposed rules only require a technical review panel to
provide an opinion where the Regional Entity recommends disapproval of
an exception request. We seek comment from NERC explaining whether it
considered obtaining the opinion of a technical panel for all Regional
Entity recommendations and, if so, why the review is only required when
a Regional Entity disapproves a request. Further, we seek comment on
whether NERC should modify the exception process to require Regional
Entities to submit all proposed determinations to a technical review
panel regardless of the recommendation and receive the panel's opinion
on each request.
2. Use of Industry Subject Matter Experts
    115. Section 8 of the proposed exception process sets forth the
procedures for NERC's review of a Regional Entity's recommendation. The
NERC President will appoint a team of at least three persons with the
technical background to evaluate an exception request. The members of
the review team must have no financial, contractual, employment or
other interest in the submitting entity or owner that would present a
conflict of interest and must be free of any conflicts of interest in
accordance with NERC policies.\130\ NERC states that ``at the present
time NERC anticipates that its review teams would be drawn from NERC
staff resources, supplemented by contractors as necessary particularly
where needed to provide specific relevant subject matter expertise.
However, situations may arise in which NERC may need to call on
industry subject matter experts to participate as members of review
teams.'' \131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ NERC ROP Petition at 31.
    \131\ Id. at n. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. We support NERC's proposal to use staff resources,
supplemented by contractors as necessary, to make up the exception
request review teams. We believe that consistent appointment of the
same NERC staff and contractor resources, based on subject matter
expertise, will promote a more uniform and consistent review of the
Regional Entities' exception request recommendations.

D. The Commission Proposes To Approve NERC's Detailed Information Form

    117. As described above, NERC developed the Detailed Information
Form that the Regional Entity and NERC can use in evaluating whether or
not the elements that are the subject of an exception request are
necessary for operating the interconnected transmission network. The
Detailed Information Form encompasses a wide range of potential
configurations and appears to ensure that a consistent baseline of
technical information is provided with all exception requests, in
addition to the specific information and arguments provided by the
submitting entity in support of its exception request. The information
that the applicant may submit in support of an exception request will
not be limited to the Detailed Information Form. The applicant will be
expected to submit all relevant data, studies and other information
that supports its exception request. Further, NERC may ask the

submitting entity to provide other data, studies and information in
addition to the Detailed Information Form and the other information
included by the applicant in the exception request.
    118. We believe that this information will provide consistency with
respect to the technical information provided with all exception
requests and is an equally efficient and effective approach to
developing a substantive set of technical criteria for granting and
rejecting exception requests. Accordingly, we propose to approve the
Detailed Information Form included in NERC's filing.

E. The Commission Proposes To Approve NERC's Implementation Plan for
the Revised Definition of Bulk Electric System

    119. As noted above, NERC requests that the revised definition
``should be effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter
after receiving applicable regulatory approval, or, in those
jurisdictions where no regulatory approval is required, the revised
[bulk electric system definition] should go into effect on the first
day of the second calendar quarter after its adoption by the NERC
Board.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ NERC BES Petition at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. NERC also requests that compliance obligations for all
elements newly-identified to be included in the bulk electric system
based on the revised definition should begin twenty-four months after
the applicable effective date of the revised definition. While the
Commission stated in Order Nos. 743 and 743-A that the transition
period should not exceed 18 months from the date of Commission approval
of the revised definition, the Commission also stated that it could
approve a longer transition period based on specific
justification.\133\ NERC states that sufficient time is needed: (1) To
implement transition plans in order to accommodate any changes
resulting from the revised definition; (2) for entities to file for
exceptions, and for the Regional Entities and NERC to process those
exceptions to a final determination, pursuant to the proposed exception
process; and (3) for owners of facilities and elements that are newly-
included in the bulk electric system based on the definition to train
their personnel on compliance with the Reliability Standards applicable
to the newly-included facilities and elements, so that these entities
can achieve compliance with applicable Reliability Standards by the end
of the transition period. We believe that NERC has provided adequate
justification for its implementation plan, as discussed above. Thus,
although NERC's plan exceeds the 18 month implementation period set
forth in Order No. 743, we propose to approve NERC's implementation
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Order No. 743, 133 FERC ] 61,150 at P 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. NERC List of Facilities Granted Exceptions

    121. In Order No. 743, the Commission stated that ``a Commission
staff audit would review the application of the exemption criteria
developed by NERC in NERC's or a Regional Entity's determination to
approve an exemption for a particular facility.'' The Commission also
stated that ``to facilitate such audits, the ERO should maintain a list
of exempted facilities that can be made available to the Commission on
request. NERC can decide how best to maintain the list, including
determining whether or not to post it on the NERC Web site.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Id. PP 117, 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. NERC states that the proposed exception process does not
include provisions for NERC to maintain a list of facilities that have
received exceptions, as this is an internal administrative matter for
NERC to implement that does not need to be embedded in NERC Rules of
Procedure.\135\ NERC states it will develop a specific internal plan
and procedures for maintaining a list of facilities for which
exceptions have been granted. Further, NERC explains that it has not
yet determined how the list will be organized and structured and under
what conditions the list will be made available on the NERC Web site or
otherwise made available to any entities other than the Commission,
citing concerns about confidential information and critical energy
infrastructure information.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ NERC ROP Petition at 49.
    \136\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. We understand that NERC is continuing to develop the details
on how it will maintain the list of facilities that have received
exceptions. However, we also consider the maintenance of this list of
facilities an important feature for tracking exceptions.\137\ Thus, we
propose that NERC file an informational filing within 90 days of the
effective date of a final rule, detailing its plans to maintain a list
and how it will make this information available to the Commission,
Regional Entities, and potentially to other interested persons. We seek
comment from NERC whether this deadline provides adequate time for NERC
to finalize its plans and submit an informational filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Order No. 743, 133 FERC ] 61,150 at PP 117, 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. While NERC states that it will maintain a list of facilities
that have received an exception pursuant to the case-specific exception
process, the petition does not indicate whether NERC will track an
entity's ``declassification'' of current bulk electric system
facilities based on the entity's self-application of the bulk electric
system definition. It appears that, in some circumstances, the
appropriate Regional Entity would receive a request that an entity be
removed from the NERC Compliance Registry. For example, if an entity
determines that its entire system satisfies the exclusion E1 for radial
systems, the entity could apply to the appropriate Regional Entity to
be removed from the NERC Compliance Registry. However, in other
circumstances, it is not clear what, if any, notification an entity
would provide to NERC or a Regional Entity when the entity self-
determines that an element is no longer part of the bulk electric
system. For example, a large utility with hundreds or thousands of
transmission lines may initially determine that a configuration on its
system does not qualify for the exclusion E3 local network exclusion,
but subsequently determines that the configuration can be excluded.
NERC's petition does not indicate whether an entity in such
circumstance is obligated to inform NERC or the appropriate Regional
Entity of that self-determination. It appears that NERC and the
Regional Entities would need this information for their compliance
programs, for audit purposes, and to understand the contours of the
bulk electric system within a particular region. Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether NERC's proposal should be modified to include an
obligation for the registered entity to inform NERC or the Regional
Entity of the entity's self-determination through application of the
definition and specific exclusions E1 through E4 that an element is no
longer part of the bulk electric system.

III. Information Collection Statement

    125. The following collection of information contained in this
Proposed Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\138\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements

imposed by agency rules.\139\ The Commission solicits comment on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondents' burden, including the use of automated information
techniques. Specifically the Commission asks that any revised burden
estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to
understand how the estimates are generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
    \139\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. In Order No. 693, the Commission approved NERC's definition of
the term bulk electric system and the associated information
requirements.
    127. In Order No. 743, the Commission directed NERC to develop a
revised ``bulk electric system'' definition. The Commission explained
that, by directing NERC to develop a revised definition, ``the
Commission is maintaining the status quo (i.e., the current bulk
electric system definition) until the Commission approves a revised
definition. Thus, the Commission's action does not add to or increase
entities' reporting burden.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Order No. 743, 133 FERC ] 61,150 at P 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    128. The immediate NOPR proposes to approve the revision to the
definition of ``bulk electric system'' developed by NERC and an
exception process to include or exclude specific elements in the
definition of ``bulk electric system'' on a case-by-case basis. The
Commission is basing its burden estimate below on the revised
definition of ``bulk electric system'' developed by NERC.
    129. The proposal in this NOPR would result in entities reviewing
systems and creating qualified asset lists, submitting exception
requests where appropriate, and certain responsible entities having to
comply with requirements to collect and maintain information in
mandatory Reliability Standards with respect to certain facilities for
the first time.
    130. Public Reporting Burden: While the Commission requests comment
concerning the information collections proposed in this NOPR and the
associated burden estimates, in particular, the Commission requests
comment on the following issues.
    131. First, we request comment on the estimated number of entities
that will have an increased reporting burden associated with the
identification of new bulk electric system elements as a result of the
modified definition. NERC states in its filing that ``[i]t was not the
intent nor the expectation of either the [standard drafting team] or
NERC to either expand or reduce the scope of the [bulk electric
system], or (with the likely exception of the NPCC Region) to increase
or decrease the number of Elements included in the [bulk electric
system], through the revised [bulk electric system] definition as
compared to the current [bulk electric system] definition.'' \141\ NERC
adds that it has no specific basis to determine to ``the extent
Elements currently included in the [bulk electric system] will become
not included, nor to what extent Elements currently not included will
become included.'' \142\ In developing an estimate of the reporting
burden associated with the inclusion of additional elements, like NERC,
we assume that entities in the NPCC Region will be most affected, with
a lesser affect in other regions.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ NERC BES Petition at 37.
    \142\ Id.
    \143\ While Reliability Standards do not require the reporting
of information directly to the Commission, the application of
Reliability Standards to additional facilities will have associated
information collection and retention obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. We reviewed Compliance registry information for the NPCC
Region to determine the number and types of registered entities in the
U.S. portion of the NPCC Region.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ NPCC Compliance Registry information is available on the
NPCC Web site at: https://www.npcc.org/Compliance/Default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that transmission owners and distribution providers, and
some generator owners, are most likely to identify new elements. Based
on this, we estimate a range from 66 to 155 affected entities in the
NPCC region, and for OMB reporting purposes identify below a median
number of 111 affected entities in the NPCC region. Further, consistent
with NERC's explanation, we do not expect a significant number of
registered entities outside of the NPCC region to identify new elements
under the revised bulk electric system definition. Accordingly, we
estimate a total of 75 entities outside of the NPCC Region having new
``implementation plan and compliance'' related reporting burdens. We
seek comment on these estimates to assist the Commission in arriving at
final estimates.
    133. Second, we seek comment on the reporting burden associated
with exception requests. NERC indicates that ``there is currently not a
basis for estimating the numbers of Exceptions Requests that will be
submitted * * *.'' \145\ We agree with NERC that there is difficulty in
estimating a specific number of exception requests as this is a new
process with no ``track record.'' Thus, rather than estimating a
specific number of exception requests, we estimate a range of exception
requests that may be submitted. As indicated in the table below, from
the 1,730 total transmission owners, generator owners and distribution
providers in the Compliance Registry, we estimate a range of 87 to 433
exception requests per year for each of the first two years after the
effective date of a final rule. We request comment on this estimated
range to assist the Commission in arriving at a final estimate of the
number of possible exception requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ NERC BES Petition at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. Third, as indicated above, our estimates are based in part on
an expectation that transmission owners, generator owners and
distribution providers will experience more significant reporting
burdens than other categories of registered entities. We seek comment
on this expectation, and whether and to what extent other categories of
registered entities (in addition to transmission owners, generator
owners and distribution providers) may have a public reporting burden.
    135. We estimate that the increased Public Reporting Burden for
this Proposed Rule is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of       Average number of
           Requirement            Number and type of     responses per         hours per      Total burden hours
                                      entity \146\          entity             response
                                  (1)...............  (2)...............  (3)...............  (1)*(2)*(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Review and List Creation   333 Transmission    1 response........  80 (engineer        26,640 Yr 1.
 \147\.                            Owners.                                 hours).
                                 --------------------                    ---------------------------------------
                                  843 Generator                           16 (engineer        13,488 Yr 1.
                                   Owners.                                 hours).
                                 --------------------                    ---------------------------------------
                                  554 Distribution                        24 (engineer        13,296 Yr 1.
                                   Providers.                              hours).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exception Requests \148\........  1,730 total         .15 responses in    94 (60 engineer     24,393 hrs in Yrs
                                   Transmission        Yrs 1 and 2.        hrs, 32 record      1 and 2.
                                   Owners, Generator                       keeping hrs, 2
                                   Owners and                              legal hrs).
                                   Distribution
                                   Providers.
                                                     --------------------                    -------------------
                                                      0.01156 responses                       1,880 hrs in Yr 3
                                                       in Yr 3 and                             and ongoing.
                                                       ongoing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional and ERO Handling of      NERC and 8          1 response........  1,386.67 hrs......  12,480 hrs in Yrs
 Exception Requests \149\.         Regional Entities.                                          1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Plans and          111 NPCC Region     1 response........  700 hrs in Yrs 1    77,700 hrs in Yrs
 Compliance \150\.                 Registered                              and 2.              1 and 2.
                                   Entities \151\.
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                                          350 hrs in Yr 3     38,850 hrs in Yr 3
                                                                           and ongoing.        and ongoing.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  75 Registered       1 response........  700 hrs in Yrs 1    52,500 hrs in Yrs
                                   Entities from 7                         and 2.              1 and 2.
                                   other Regions.
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                                          350 hrs in Yr 3     26,250 hrs in Yr 3
                                                                           and ongoing.        and ongoing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ..................  ..................  ..................  220,497 hrs in Yr
                                                                                1.
                                                                                -------------------
                                                                                167,073 hrs in Yr
                                                                                2.
                                                                                -------------------
                                                                                66,980 hrs in Yr 3
                                                                                and ongoing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \146\ The ``entities'' listed in this table are describing a
role a company is registered for in the NERC registry. For example,
a single company may be registered as a transmission owner and
generator owner. The total number of companies applicable to this
rule is 1,522, based on the NERC registry. The total number of
estimated roles is 1,730.
    \147\ This requirement corresponds to Step 1 of NERC's proposed
transition plan, which requires each U.S. asset owner to apply the
revised bulk electric system definition to all elements to determine
if those elements are included in the bulk electric system pursuant
to the revised definition. See NERC BES Petition at 38.
    \148\ We recognize that not all 1,730 transmission owners,
generator owners and distribution providers will submit an exception
request. Rather, from the total 1,730 entities, we estimate an
average of 260 requests per year in the first two years, based on a
low to high range of 87 to 433 requests per year. Therefore, the
estimated total number of hours per year for years 1 and 2, using an
average of 260 requests per year, is 24,393 hours. We estimate 20
requests per year in year 3 and ongoing.
    \149\ Based on the assumption of two full-time equivalent
employees added to NERC staff and 0.5 full-time equivalent employees
added to each region's staff, each full-time equivalent at $120,000/
year (salary + benefits).
    \150\ The Commission does not expect a significant number of
registered entities outside of the NPCC region to identify new
elements under the revised bulk electric system definition. NERC
also states that the other Regional Entities do not expect an
extensive amount of newly-included facilities. See NERC BES Petition
at 38. ``Compliance'' refers to entities with new elements under the
new bulk electric system definition required to comply with the data
collection and retention requirements in certain Reliability
Standards that they did not previously have to comply with.
    \151\ The estimated range of affected NPCC Region Registered
Entities is from 66 to 155 entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comment on the
costs to comply with these requirements. These cost estimates are
calculated using the average of the ranges suggested in the burden hour
estimates. It has projected the annual cost to be:
     Year 1: $13,641,200.
     Year 2: $10,435,760.
     Year 3 and ongoing: $4,343,520.
For the first two burden categories above, the loaded (salary plus
benefits) costs are: $60/hour for an engineer; $27/hour for
recordkeeping; and $106/hour for legal. The breakdown of cost by item
and year follows:
     System Review and List Creation (year 1 only): (26,640 hrs
+ 13,488 hrs + 13,296 hrs) = 53,424 hrs * 60/hr = $3,205,440.
     Exception Requests (years 1 and 2): (sum of hourly expense
per request * number of exception requests) = ((60 hrs * $60/hr) + (32
hrs * $27/hr) + (2 hrs * $106/hr)) * 260 requests) = $1,215,760.
     Exception Requests (year 3): (sum of hourly expense per
request * number of exception requests) = ((60 hrs * $60/hr) + (32 hrs
* $27/hr) + (2 hrs * $106/hr)) * 20 requests) = $93,520.
     Regional and ERO handling of Exception Requests: Between
NERC and regional entities we estimate 6 full time equivalent (FTE)
engineers will be added at an annual cost of $120,000/FTE ($120,000/FTE
* 6 FTE = $720,000). This cost is only expected in years 1 and 2.

     Implementation Plans and Compliance \152\ (years 1 and 2):
(hourly expense per entity * hours per response * sum of NPCC and non-
NPCC entities) = ($64/hour * 700 hours per response * 186 responses) =
$8,332,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ The cost and hourly burden calculations for this category
are based on a past assessment (NPCC Assessment of Bulk Electric
System Definition, September 14, 2009.). In that assessment NPCC
indicated $8.9 million annually for operations, maintenance and
additional costs. We estimated that roughly half of that cost
actually relates to information collection burden. Using the
resulting figure, we used a composite wage and benefit figure of
$64/hour to estimate the hourly burden figures presented in the
burden table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Implementation Plans and Compliance (year 3 and beyond):
We estimate the ongoing cost for year 3 and beyond, at 50% of the year
1 and 2 costs, to be $4,166,400.
    Title: FERC-725-J ``Definition of the Bulk Electric System.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ All of the information collection requirements for years
1-3 in the proposed rule are being accounted for under the new
collection FERC-725J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: The proposed revision to NERC's
definition of the term bulk electric system, if adopted, would
implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better
ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically,
the proposal would ensure that certain facilities needed for the
operation of the nation's bulk electric system are subject to mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
definition and made a determination that its action is necessary to
implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has assured itself, by
means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support
for the burden estimate associated with the information requirements.
    136. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    137. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in
this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference
FERC-725J and the docket numbers of this Proposed Rulemaking (Docket
Nos. RM12-6-000 and RM12-7-000) in your submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    138. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \154\ generally
requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, the Commission believes that the immediate effect
of the proposal to approve the modification to the definition of bulk
electric system and the exception process would likely be limited to
certain transmission owners, generator owners and distribution service
providers, as well as NERC and Regional Entities. Many transmission
owners, generator owners and distribution service providers do not fall
within the definition of small entities.\155\ The Commission estimates
that approximately 418 \156\ of the 1,730 registered transmission
owners, generator owners and distribution service providers may fall
within the definition of small entities.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2006).
    \155\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632 (2006). According to the SBA, an electric utility is
defined as ``small'' if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of
electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the
preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
    \156\ We note that in Order No. 693, the Commission estimated
that the Reliability Standards in that the Final Rule would apply to
approximately 682 small entities. See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1940. Because the current Proposed Rule would
affect a smaller subset of the categories of registered entities,
our estimate is lower than that cited in Order No. 693.
    \157\ The number of small entities is generated by comparing the
NERC compliance registry with data submitted to the Energy
Information Administration on Form EIA-861. Note, these numbers do
not account for companies that may be registered in more than one
role. For companies registered in more than one role, the burden
will likely be higher than for those companies registered in only
one role. We estimate that there are 381 companies and 418
registered roles, meaning that several companies are registered in
more than one role. We do not believe this affects the certification
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    139. The Commission estimates that of the 418 small entities
affected there are 50 within the NPCC region that would have to comply
with the Proposed Rule. The Commission assumes that the Proposed Rule
would affect more small entities in the NPCC Region than those outside
NPCC as it is assumed that there are more elements in NPCC that would
be added to the bulk electric system based on the new definition than
elsewhere. The Commission estimates the first year affect on small
entities within the NPCC region to be $39,414.\158\ This figure is
based on information collection costs plus additional costs for
compliance.\159\ The Commission estimates the average annual affect per
small entity outside of NPCC will be less than for the entities within
NPCC. The Commission does not consider this to be a significant
economic impact for either class of entities because it should not
represent a significant percentage of the operating budget.
Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Proposed Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission seeks comment on this certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ For companies registered as more than one entity in the
NERC compliance registry this figure will increase accordingly. That
is, if a company is registered as a transmission owner and generator
owner then the cost burden would be $78,828 ($39,414 * 2 = $78,828).
    \159\ We use fifty percent of the first year ``number of hours
per response'' figure in the information collection statement for
calculation under the assumption that smaller entities do not have
complicated systems or will not have as many new elements on average
as larger entities do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

    140. 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.\160\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. The actions proposed here fall within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.\161\ Accordingly, neither an environmental
impact statement nor environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \161\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).

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

VI. Comment Procedures

    141. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted,
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 4, 2012. Comments must
refer to Docket Nos. RM12-6-000 and RM12-7-000, and must include the
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and
their address in their comments.
    142. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    143. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    144. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    145. 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 the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission'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.
    146. From the Commission'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.
    147. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (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>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power; Electric utilities; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Clark voting
present.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15944 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8157-8160]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3697; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-143-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-01-
15, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-01-15 currently requires repetitive
inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel
along the chem-milled step at stringers S-4L (left) and S-4R (right),
from stations (STA) 297 through STA 439, and repair, if necessary. AD
2011-01-15 also includes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections of the repaired areas only. Since we issued AD 2011-01-15,
we received reports of the initiation of new fatigue cracking in the
fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along locally thinned channels
adjacent to the chem-milled steps. This proposed AD would add
repetitive inspections for cracking in additional areas and repair if
necessary. This proposed AD would also remove airplanes from the
applicability in AD 2011-01-15. This proposed AD would also add an
optional skin panel replacement which would terminate all inspections
and an optional preventative modification that would terminate certain
inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel, which could
result in pressure venting and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone:
206-544-5000, extension 2; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3697.

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-2016-
3697; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5348; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2016-3697;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-143-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 28, 2010, we issued AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572
(76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011), for certain The Boeing Company Model
757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2011-01-15 requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown
skin panel along the

chem-milled step at stringers S-4L and S-4R, from stations (STA) 297
through STA 439, and repair if necessary. AD 2011-01-15 also includes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the repaired areas
only. AD 2011-01-15 resulted from reports of cracking in the fuselage
skin of the crown skin panel. We issued AD 2011-01-15 to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel,
which could result in pressure venting and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351, January
10, 2011), Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351,
January 10, 2011), specifies that we consider the requirements
``interim action.'' AD 2011-01-15 explains that we might consider
further rulemaking if final action is later identified. We now have
determined that it is necessary to initiate further rulemaking to add
repetitive inspections for cracking in additional areas for certain
airplanes, and repair if necessary.
    We have removed Model 757-200 CB series airplanes from the
applicability because the crown skins on those airplanes are
manufactured differently and therefore are not affected by the
identified unsafe condition.
    We have also determined that the external detailed inspection that
is allowed as an option in AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR
1351, January 12, 2011), does not adequately address the identified
unsafe condition. Only eddy current inspections are adequate to address
the identified unsafe condition.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097,
Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for repetitive external sliding probe eddy current (EC) and
external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspections for cracking of the
crown skin panel, repair, a preventive modification, and replacement of
the crown skin panel. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3697.

Explanation of ``RC'' Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for
compliance) in any service information identified previously have a
direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an
identified unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (Zone 1) [Retained   2 work-hour x $85 per   $0...............  $170 per           $110,840 per
 actions from AD 2011-01-15,      hour = $170 per                            inspection cycle.  inspection
 Amendment 39[dash]16572 (76 FR   inspection cycle.                                             cycle.
 1351, January 10, 2011)].
Inspections (Zones 2 and 3)      Up to 4 work-hours x    $0...............  Up to $340 per     $221,680 per
 [new proposed action].           $85 per hour = Up to                       inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  $340 per inspection                                           cycle.
                                  cycle.
Optional modification..........  Up to 615 work-hours x  Up to $26,496....  Up to $78,771....  Up to
                                  $85 per hour = Up to                                          $51,358,692.
                                  $52,275.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the proposed
regulation:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-3697; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-143-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 4,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR 1351,
January 10, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2,
dated July 28, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the initiation of fatigue
cracking in the fuselage skin of the crown skin panel along locally
thinned channels adjacent to the chem-milled steps. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin
of the crown skin panel, which could result in pressure venting and
consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Do the applicable inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For all airplanes: At the applicable time specified in table
1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015: Do
the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of
this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated
July 28, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable
times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2,
dated July 28, 2015. Accomplishing the preventative modification
specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD or the replacement
specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections
required by this paragraph.
    (i) Do an external sliding probe eddy current (EC) inspection
for cracking of the crown skin panel at stringers S-4L (left) and S-
4R (right).
    (ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection
for cracking of the crown skin panel at stringers S-4L and S-4R.
    (2) For airplanes on which any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is
installed that covers the Zone 1 inspection area specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated
July 28, 2015; or any preventive modification is installed as
specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated
July 28, 2015: At the applicable time specified in table 2 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, except as
required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: Do the inspection specified
in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.
Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this
AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
    (i) Do an external sliding probe EC inspection for cracking of
the crown skin panel at stringers S-2L, S-3L, and S-3R, as
applicable.
    (ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection
for cracking of the crown skin panel at stringers S-2L, S-3L, and S-
3R, as applicable.
    (3) For airplanes on which any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; or any repair is
installed that covers the Zone 1 inspection area specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated
July 28, 2015; or any preventive modification is installed as
specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated
July 28, 2015: At the applicable time specified in table 3 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, except as
required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: Do the inspection specified
in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 3
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.
Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this
AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
    (i) Do an external sliding probe EC inspection for cracking of
the crown skin panel at stringers S-3L and S-3R.
    (ii) Do an external spot-probe-medium-frequency EC inspection
for cracking of the crown skin panel at stringers S-3L and S-3R.

(h) Post-Preventive Modification Supplemental Inspections

    For airplanes on which a preventive modification has been
installed as specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision
2, dated July 28, 2015: At the applicable time specified in table 4
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015; do
eddy current and detailed inspections for cracking of the applicable
areas of the fuselage skin of the doublers, triplers, and fillers of
the preventive modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-
0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
757-53-0097, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.

(i) Repair

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (h) of this AD, repair before
further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Doing the repair
ends the repetitive inspections for the repaired area only.

(j) Optional Terminating Actions

    (1) Accomplishing the preventative modification, including doing
high frequency EC inspections for cracking around existing fastener
holes, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision
2, dated July 28, 2015, except

as required by paragraphs (k)(2) and (k)(3) of this AD, terminates
the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, provided
the preventative modification is done before further flight after
accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Replacing the crown skin panel between STA 297 and STA 439,
S-4L to S-4R, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD, terminates the
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD.

(k) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications and Preventative
Modification

    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097,
Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after
the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097,
Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for
repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.
    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (m) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for Zone 1 inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, dated November 22, 2010,
which was incorporated by reference in AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-
16572 (76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011).
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the Zone 1 inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-53-0097, Revision 1, dated January 6,
2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) 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 Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method 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) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572 (76 FR
1351, January 10, 2011), are not approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) 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. 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.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03297 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52836-52838]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-AD;
Amendment 39-17529; AD 2013-15-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by two in-
service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost
pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the
engine. This AD requires repetitive operational tests of the engine
fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the
engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the
event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual
engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent
forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 1,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6438; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to the specified products. The SNPRM published in the
Federal Register on October 30, 2012 (77 FR 65642). We preceded the
SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32256). The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary, according to a
method approved by the FAA. The SNPRM proposed to require repetitive
operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM (77
FR 65642, October 30, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the SNPRM (77 FR 65642, October 30, 2012)

    One commenter, Mara Essick, submitted support for the actions
specified in the SNPRM (77 FR 65642, October 30, 2012).

Request To Provide Credit for Actions Done Before Service Bulletin
Issued

    American Airlines (AA) asked that we give credit for operators that
accomplished the specified actions before issuance of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. AA stated that it
accomplished the operational tests proposed in the original NPRM (73 FR
32256, June 6, 2008) in 2008, using the Boeing task cards or airplane
maintenance manual (AMM). AA added that it continues to do the
repetitive operational tests at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight
hours.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Although we normally
support granting credit for accomplishing actions prior to the
effective date of the AD, the credit is generally given using a
previous issue of the required service bulletin, not for an AMM or task
cards. Under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this final rule,
however, we may consider individual requests for credit for
accomplishing actions prior to the effective date of the AD if data are
submitted to substantiate that it provides an acceptable level of
safety. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 673 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test.....................  Up to 6 work hours x     Up to $2,040, per test.  Up to $343,230, per
                                        $85 per hour = $510                               test
                                        per engine, per test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-15-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17529; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 1, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF,
-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

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

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions

    Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an operational test of
the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May
4, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Thereafter,
except as provided in paragraph

(h) of this AD, no alternative procedures or repeat test intervals
will be allowed.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

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

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20718 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P